AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)  (Read 39156 times)

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #275 on: March 30, 2020, 04:06:49 PM »

I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.

A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.

idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6792
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:56:31 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #276 on: March 30, 2020, 10:23:04 PM »

I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.

A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.

idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though

As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers.  The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state).  AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S).  But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89.  Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above.  But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results.  Either way they could have done a lot better!
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #277 on: March 30, 2020, 10:30:18 PM »

I Feel like NC just wanted to give an excuse to use another 2di Highway, when I-87 is done isn't it going to be below 100 miles? i feel like it should be one of the requirements that a highway has to be atleast 100 or 150 Miles to be a 2di highway, like I-83/I-19/I-97/I-2 Etc, Etc
180 miles between I-40 at Raleigh to the Virginia state line, 197 miles total if extended in Virginia to I-64.

A 2di designation is appropriate for that length, and would be going between two states carrying long-distance traffic.

idk why, i think i'm just being biased to the I-87 in NY due to always living near it and always travelling on it, but i just don't get it though

As far as the number's concerned, NCDOT's original rationale was to not conflict with nearby state highway numbers.  The available even numbers without US route conflicts in either state, 42, 46, 54, and 56, were considered too close to the corridor -- and since most NC addresses on rural routes reference the highway number -- and the state didn't want to require address changes to a new state route number (they're supposedly a non-duplicating state, with a few hugely visible exceptions like NC 73 and US 74!!!!!), they chose a number (89) that at least wouldn't be intersected by the corridor (being in the western part of the state).  AASHTO's SCOURN rejected the argument about state conflict, but did accept the odd-numbered argument that the corridor essentially duplicated I-85's trajectory but farther east (even though the E-W distance is vastly greater than that of N-S).  But they substituted I-87 for some BS "historical" reason; also because the extant NY I-87 is considerably closer to the N-S longitudinal location of the NC/VA corridor than I-89.  Like I said earlier, a misinformed and convoluted rationale -- if they rejected the state-conflict argument, they should have selected an unused even number from the available pool cited above.  But it was a rainy Des Moines week; so they either elected to "rubber-stamp" the state's arguments with modifications just to get their collective asses home or they simply took advantage of being in a facility with a bar (cash or open) with dubious results.  Either way they could have done a lot better!

I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #278 on: March 30, 2020, 11:18:08 PM »

I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N
It's being signed north-south for the entire length. The current sign-posted segment, a 13 mile segment outside Raleigh, is north-south.

Of the route, 100 miles of US-64 is east-west, and 97 miles of US-17 (assuming I-87 is extended to I-64) is north-south.

If you think I-87 being north-south is bad though, note that NCDOT also plans on signing I-587 (a straight east-west route along US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville) as north-south. Their rational is that because the parent is north-south, the spur has to be also, which has been proven false by the countless of spur routes that differ from the parent (i.e I-664, I-195, I-565, I-195, I-595, I-310, I-110, I-510, I-105, and plenty more). According to signage plans, north will be towards Raleigh, south will be towards Greenville.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #279 on: March 30, 2020, 11:40:52 PM »

I Don't Believe they should number interstates from what their history is, due to The Highway system has to do with anything past 1950s (Except from Interregional System) Again, when I-87 is Completed, its mainly going to be East to West, and i Feel like its going to be Signed West to East in NC but in VA its S-N
It's being signed north-south for the entire length. The current sign-posted segment, a 13 mile segment outside Raleigh, is north-south.

Of the route, 100 miles of US-64 is east-west, and 97 miles of US-17 (assuming I-87 is extended to I-64) is north-south.

If you think I-87 being north-south is bad though, note that NCDOT also plans on signing I-587 (a straight east-west route along US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville) as north-south. Their rational is that because the parent is north-south, the spur has to be also, which has been proven false by the countless of spur routes that differ from the parent (i.e I-664, I-195, I-565, I-195, I-595, I-310, I-110, I-510, I-105, and plenty more). According to signage plans, north will be towards Raleigh, south will be towards Greenville.

Well thanks for telling me that, it just shows more proof of how messed up the numbering and signage in the Highway system honestly... who else can agree?

And last time I was on I-587 in August 2019 I saw
East   South
I-587 NY 28

So it either shows The AASHTO doesn’t care what NC does, or NC is the controller of the AASHTO
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 11:45:40 PM by AcE_Wolf_287 »
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #280 on: March 30, 2020, 11:48:23 PM »

I-87 isn’t as bad because while it’s more east-west, it is also north-south. Go south into North Carolina, go north into Virginia, go south to I-95, go north to I-95, etc.

I-587 is really the only poor directional signage since it’s blatantly east-west. It’s also the only example that will actually cause confusion outside the road geek world. Not sure if AASHTO had input on that decision asides from simply approving the number.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #281 on: March 30, 2020, 11:54:18 PM »

I-87 isn’t as bad because while it’s more east-west, it is also north-south. Go south into North Carolina, go north into Virginia, go south to I-95, go north to I-95, etc.

I-587 is really the only poor directional signage since it’s blatantly east-west. It’s also the only example that will actually cause confusion outside the road geek world. Not sure if AASHTO had input on that decision asides from simply approving the number.

And I know I keep saying this but

The Numbering is just out of question,

Let’s see some other poor examples of I-587(NC)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #282 on: March 30, 2020, 11:55:39 PM »

And I know I keep saying this but

The Numbering is just out of question,
How?
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #283 on: March 30, 2020, 11:58:41 PM »

And I know I keep saying this but

The Numbering is just out of question,
How?

Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where “Interstate 69 Fan” says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could’ve been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you’ll see what I mean

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #284 on: March 31, 2020, 12:04:12 AM »

And I know I keep saying this but

The Numbering is just out of question,
How?

Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where “Interstate 69 Fan” says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could’ve been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you’ll see what I mean
Because it uses a 5 instead of a 1, 3, 7, or 9?

I don't see how that's an issue. And if it's because it's the same as New York, 3di's get duplicated all the time around the country. That's nothing new.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #285 on: March 31, 2020, 12:12:39 AM »

And I know I keep saying this but

The Numbering is just out of question,
How?

Well if you go to the first page and go to the bottom
Where “Interstate 69 Fan” says all the numbering solutions of I-587 that could’ve been used, I do believe other people know what I mean with numbering, just go to the first page and you’ll see what I mean
Because it uses a 5 instead of a 1, 3, 7, or 9?

I don't see how that's an issue. And if it's because it's the same as New York, 3di's get duplicated all the time around the country. That's nothing new.

See here’s the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn’t ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn’t even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could’ve used but didn’t

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #286 on: March 31, 2020, 12:17:48 AM »

See here’s the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn’t ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn’t even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could’ve used but didn’t
Still not uncommon.

See Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and California I-110.

Texas still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
Louisiana still has I-710 and I-910.
Mississippi still has I-510, I-710, and I-910
Florida still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
California still has I-310, I-510, and I-910.
Logged

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #287 on: March 31, 2020, 12:28:16 AM »

See here’s the thing, 3di get duplicated with the same interstates, I-87 in Ny hasn’t ran out of 3di, only used 2 (Technically 4) but currently 2, no other duplicate interstate (like 76, 84,86, or 88) uses the same, but I-87 still has leftover, if I-87 (NY) had used up all of the 3di, I wouldn’t even been commenting on this page, but the fact is they had multiple other numbers they could’ve used but didn’t
Still not uncommon.

See Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, and California I-110.

Texas still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
Louisiana still has I-710 and I-910.
Mississippi still has I-510, I-710, and I-910
Florida still has I-310, I-510, I-710, and I-910.
California still has I-310, I-510, and I-910.

Your not getting what I’m saying, I-10 is Continuous so I don’t care about that, the 2 87’s aren’t that’s what I mean, 2 different 87’s but a single 10

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #288 on: March 31, 2020, 12:31:38 AM »

Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future
Quote
Three future interstate highways will further streamline existing eastern North Carolina corridors and will continue spurring economic development and population growth in the region during the next several decades, according to developers and transportation officials. These routes are future Interstate 87 between Raleigh and Norfolk, future I-587 between Zebulon and Greenville and future I-42 between Raleigh and Morehead City.

There are no accurate projections of when these highways will become fully completed interstates, since they are funded and scheduled for construction or improvement in sections that compete for priority, officials said. However, simply the promise of relatively continual upgrading of these routes to interstate standards over time is enough to quicken the pulse of economic development efforts in the counties and regions through which they pass. What are now rural, largely agricultural areas of eastern North Carolina will inevitably become better connected to highway networks, seaport facilities and rail terminals serving prosperous population centers throughout the eastern United States and beyond.

In some areas, like North Carolina’s Crystal Coast — accessible by U.S. 70/Future I-42 — population will almost surely increase and generate a wave of related economic investment along with growth management challenges. In others, vitality-sapping population declines over recent decades will hopefully be diminished through the creation of many new jobs in advanced manufacturing, food processing, logistics and other infrastructure-dependent enterprises feeding off the new future interstates.

“Ninety percent of all new job creation takes place along these type corridors,” said Christian Lockamy, a former Greenville economic developer who is now director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Economic Development Authority. “All three of these future eastern North Carolina interstate thruways have driven a lot of looks at our region from companies we’ve been working to attract. As a result, businesses and industrial parks are increasing significantly along the routes.”

Greenville spur

Future I-587, announced by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in late 2016, will run from future I-87 at Zebulon east to Greenville along an upgraded U.S. 264. Once future I-87 was approved and announced, officials and economic developers from the Greenville area lobbied the state and federal agencies for a spur route on behalf of the city. This rural freeway joins Raleigh to both Wilson and Greenville, as well as overlaying I-795 between I-95 and its continuation south to Goldsboro.

There is now a funded contract for two separate projects in Greene and Pitt counties related to upgrading U.S. 264 to interstate standards, according to Cadmus Capehart, Division Construction Engineer for North Carolina DOT’s Division 2. Both involve widening outside lane shoulders from four to 10 feet, as required for interstate highways, and both will take place in conjunction with a process of rehabilitating the pavement through strengthening and resurfacing. These two projects, totaling approximately $22.5 million, should be complete in late 2020 or early 2021.

These improvements will still not bring Pitt and Greene counties totally up to interstate standards because there will still have to be more work in the future on bridges to bring them into compliance with vertical clearance and required length of on and off ramps. Altogether, it’s estimated that $100 million will eventually be needed to bring the entire route from Zebulon to Greenville up to interstate standards.

“Greenville was the largest city in North Carolina without an interstate connection until I-587 was approved,” said Vann Rogerson, interim director and CEO of the N.C. East Alliance. “Now, though, Pitt County can be presented to potential clients as well situated for going back up toward Raleigh, up Interstate 95 and up toward the Port of Virginia via the connection near Bethel with I-87.”

“Now it’s vital that we stay behind future I-587 and the other future interstates in the region to make sure they — and our local economy — remain competitive as far as the process of setting funding priorities is concerned,” he added.
Logged

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 690
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: May 26, 2020, 04:30:39 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #289 on: March 31, 2020, 11:54:05 AM »

Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?
Logged
The cities I build in Minecraft are better laid out than the one I currently live in.

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2572
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 29, 2020, 07:35:39 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #290 on: April 01, 2020, 05:51:51 PM »

Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?

As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #291 on: April 01, 2020, 07:02:45 PM »

Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?

As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:
Apparently they think that travelers will be heading south to Greenville, and north to Raleigh.
Logged

goobnav

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 282
  • Cannonball Run should start in Wilmington!

  • Age: 45
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 29, 2020, 10:40:19 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #292 on: April 02, 2020, 09:43:37 AM »

Did they ever get around to fixing the directional signage, or is it still going to be signed north-south despite running east-west?

As far as I know, it's still going to be signed N/S. I'd like to think that somebody, somewhere, at NCDOT will eventually realize how stupid this is, but I'm not holding my breath. :banghead:

Based on the new map issued by this gubernatorial administration, won't change till they are changed.  So many mistakes on that document, have a copy here at home, have no faith in them changing the obvious mistake of signing 587 north/south.
Logged
Life is a highway and I drive it all night long!

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2572
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 29, 2020, 07:35:39 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #293 on: April 02, 2020, 05:09:44 PM »

Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future
Quote
There is now a funded contract for two separate projects in Greene and Pitt counties related to upgrading U.S. 264 to interstate standards, according to Cadmus Capehart, Division Construction Engineer for North Carolina DOT’s Division 2. Both involve widening outside lane shoulders from four to 10 feet, as required for interstate highways, and both will take place in conjunction with a process of rehabilitating the pavement through strengthening and resurfacing. These two projects, totaling approximately $22.5 million, should be complete in late 2020 or early 2021.

These improvements will still not bring Pitt and Greene counties totally up to interstate standards because there will still have to be more work in the future on bridges to bring them into compliance with vertical clearance and required length of on and off ramps. Altogether, it’s estimated that $100 million will eventually be needed to bring the entire route from Zebulon to Greenville up to interstate standards.

I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4303
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:12:18 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #294 on: April 02, 2020, 05:31:58 PM »

I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.

I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2020, 05:34:28 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2572
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 29, 2020, 07:35:39 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #295 on: April 02, 2020, 07:41:56 PM »

I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.

I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.

When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 178
  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: May 07, 2020, 05:51:19 PM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #296 on: April 02, 2020, 11:38:17 PM »

I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.

I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.

When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.

yea, it would cost less as well for them

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1228
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: May 29, 2020, 02:08:22 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #297 on: April 07, 2020, 04:53:48 PM »

I've been on that stretch many times and the clearance on those bridges don't look any different than those on the Wilson bypass or I-795. The ones between Sims and Zebulon look like they could use a boost, though.
I can't think of any more work that would be required on US-264 between I-95 and Greenville to bring it to interstate standards. The road already meets interstate standards with the exception of the shoulders, which the current project is addressing. The current work should be sufficient enough to allow NCDOT to post I-587 (east and west) signage from I-95 to the NC-11 Bypass with approval from the FHWA.

I'd be curious to see a detailed report on what would be required to finalize the stretch up to interstate standards, from Zebulon to Greenville, similar to the studies completed on US-64 and US-17 back in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

IIRC, back in 2016 when Nick Tennyson was NCDOT Secretary, he mentioned in an interview that the stretch between Zebulon and I-95 needed increased bridge clearances, as well as shoulder widening and maybe some ramp work, since that part is older than the stretch in Greene and Pitt Counties. I'd also like to see a report, too.

When NCDOT recently upgraded I-85 between Henderson and the VA state line, they increased bridge clearances by lowering the road rather than replace the bridges. They'll probably do the same for US-264.

yea, it would cost less as well for them

A 3rd option is to strip off the deck, jack up the beams, insert pier extenders, and repour the deck. Only cheaper than lowering the roadway if the decks need replacing anyway.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

 


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.