News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)

Started by Interstate 69 Fan, November 15, 2016, 07:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Strider

Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: Strider on April 10, 2017, 01:14:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 04, 2017, 12:54:05 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 02, 2017, 06:29:19 PM
No reason to have an interstate to end in a useless concurrency.

An actual signed concurrency of I-87 & I-440 probably isn't necessary; all that is needed is to prominently post "TO I-87" on the I-440 approach BGS's along I-40 in both directions, and the corresponding "TO I-40" on the BGS's pertaining to the movement from I-87 west to I-440 south.  The interchanges are close enough to one another for such signage references to function well.



Yeah I mentioned in the other part of the post that NCDOT will sign I-87/I-440 together. Proof? I-26/I-240 (4 miles) in Asheville; and I-73/I-840 (3.5 miles) in Greensboro even though these 2dis continue past the 3di's terminus, plus the link that bob7374 provided that has I-87 that to be signed with I-440 for 3 miles.  :)

Since the 440/87 and 440/40 interchanges near Raleigh are quite close together, it probably won't make much of a difference whether or not 87 is signed over 440.  With or without "TO" banners, whatever is chosen will probably work fine for the purpose of connectivity.  However, to compare that with 26/240 and 73/840 is not particularly valid, as both 26 and 73 (at least within the scope of planned routes) leave the coincidences at both ends as an individual route; 87/440 is what is often termed a "useless" multiplex, as I-87 will end at I-40 along with I-440.  Maybe it's mitigated by the very fact that both of them end at a single point; not co-signing them may disadvantage drivers leaving I-40 bound for either points along I-87 or the north side of Raleigh served by I-440.  So let NCDOT sign it as they deem fit; if it causes confusion, they'll certainly get feedback about it down the line!   


I wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.


sparker

Quote from: Strider on April 10, 2017, 10:11:33 PM
I wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.


All right -- you're indeed correct in that NCDOT does have a penchant for multiplexed Interstates, so it's virtually certain that 87 will indeed be co-signed with 440 around the SE edge of Raleigh.  Not a matter of my own personal preference (I'm not directly paying for the signs, so I really don't give a FF about the co-signage).  However -- if this practice is maintained, I may look into buying shares of Alcoa and Reynolds (major suppliers of sheet aluminum)! :sombrero:

LM117

Quote from: sparker on April 10, 2017, 08:06:39 PMif it causes confusion, they'll certainly get feedback about it down the line!   

That's why NCDOT got rid of the 40/440 concurrency, IIRC.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 26, 2017, 06:32:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on February 04, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Anybody know if "Future I-587" signs have been posted along US-264 yet? :hmmm:

As of today - they are not.

I've been thinking about this just now. Unless the signs have gone up since this post, then I suspect NCDOT is wanting to have I-495/Future I-495 decommissioned and replaced with I-87/Future I-87 signs before putting up Future I-587 signs. Otherwise, it would appear that Future I-587 is branching off of Future I-495.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

froggie

Quote from: striderI wasn't even comparing 73/840 and 26/240 with 87/440. My point is that that NCDOT does sign both routes together whether it is pointless or not. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that is the plan.

That is your speculation.  While it's plausible given the precedent you cited, we do not know if that is the plan with 87 or not.  As I noted in past threads, per email correspondence with NCDOT, they were still looking at whether to remove 440 from that segment or leave it there.

Interstate 69 Fan

Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

sparker

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 11, 2017, 01:58:16 PM
Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.

AFAIK, both have been approved, but only I-14 is slated for signage within a year or so.  Some Google Map "editor" is just engaging in wishful thinking at this point.

Alex

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 11, 2017, 01:58:16 PM
Why is I-587 on Google Maps? They must have thought that it was approved. They need to get I-14 in.

Or someone just added it because they felt like it...

Since you weren't around back then, let me reference you to when Google Maps showed GA 400 as I-585 in Atlanta.

The Ghostbuster

They did? I would have preferred the 485 number fictitiously, unless the fictional designation went north of 285. Then 585 would have been appropriate.

LM117

#134
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.

So that makes seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587.  Someone over there must really, really believe in the future!   :rolleyes:

Jmiles32

#136
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.

So that makes seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587.  Someone over there must really, really believe in the future!   :rolleyes:

Speaking of Future NC I-285, any updates? I was under the impression all NCDOT had to do was make some minor improvements to the stretch of US-52 between I-85 and the I-85 Buisness split near Lexington. Its funny that I-587 is already shown on Google Maps after 6 months while I-285 isn't after almost 12 years!
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

Strider

Quote from: Jmiles32 on April 12, 2017, 08:59:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2017, 08:19:57 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.

So that makes seven of them in NC alone: 26,42,73,74,87,285 and 587.  Someone over there must really, really believe in the future!   :rolleyes:

Speaking of Future NC I-285, any updates? I was under the impression all NCDOT had to do was make some minor improvements to the stretch of US-52 between I-85 and the I-85 Buisness split near Lexington. Its funny that I-587 is already shown on Google Maps after 6 months while I-285 isn't after almost 12 years!


I-285 for some reason cannot be signed until upgrades is done to the US 52 section between the South Main St exit and I-40. As far as I know, there are no plans to upgrade this section of US 52 as of this time.

The one from I-85/Bus 85 split to the Lexington exit is already done.

CanesFan27

Quote from: LM117 on April 12, 2017, 04:51:43 PM
For those looking for a Kodak moment, I just got word from someone that lives in the area that NCDOT was out putting up "Future I-587" signs along US-264 today.

That would make sense since they update two auxiallry signs on 64 East at the 264 split yesterday.  I'll take a two exit detour on my way to work this morning.

CanesFan27


Henry

I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

LM117

#141
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!

Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.

Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sparker

Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!

Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.

Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.

Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed.  Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!

Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.

Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.

Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed.  Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.

Don't forget that I-87 is designated, and can be signed, along its segment already designated.
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

Interstate 69 Fan

Quote from: orulz on November 15, 2016, 08:57:22 PM
Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot.

69 will have 3 169s when done.
Apparently I’m a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

LM117

Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on April 13, 2017, 08:56:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 13, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Quote from: LM117 on April 13, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 13, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
I-269 and I-369 are also signed before their parent (in this case, I-69) is!

Except that I-269 and I-369 are already in the Interstate system. I-587 isn't because a little more than half of the US-264 freeway doesn't meet interstate standards...yet.

Though I agree that I-587 will be finished long before I-87. Upgrading US-264 is probably the cheapest interstate upgrade in the state. The big headache with I-87 is upgrading US-17.

Which is why the US 64 segment of I-87 will likely be signed well before US 17 -- although short completed segments such as the Elizabeth City bypass might also be eligible for signage -- but I'd be surprised if anything north of Williamston was signed with anything but "future" reference until the entire US 17 stretch was completed.  Completing US 264 to code will indeed be a simpler task.

Don't forget that I-87 is designated, and can be signed, along its segment already designated.

I don't see I-87 shields going up on the Knightdale Bypass until NCDOT gets I-495/Future I-495 decommissioned. I'm hoping that will happen during AASHTO's spring meeting in May.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

roadman65

It will be nice to see an I-587 that is a real freeway, instead of that freeway like arterial in Kingston with no interchanges at even either end. :) :)
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

The Nature Boy

Google Maps has gone ahead and designed the entirety of future I-587 as "I-587." I assume that the error will be fixed soon but take a gander while you can.

Roadsguy

Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

LM117

Quote from: Roadsguy on April 17, 2017, 09:58:40 AM
Huh, so NCDOT plans on adding two-more double-3di concurrencies to the system (785/840 and 587/795) in addition to Ohio's 271/480 concurrency.

Yep. It's the only way I-785 and I-795 can connect with their parents.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.