AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)  (Read 52874 times)

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 488
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:30:47 PM
Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« on: November 15, 2016, 07:17:07 PM »

Since I-587 was approved, I feel like that I-587 should have it's own thread.
Here is a reference to I-587:
http://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264
:-)
Logged
Apparently Im a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
Re: Interstate 587 (NC)
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2016, 07:46:03 PM »

FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.

US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.

US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 488
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:30:47 PM
Re: Interstate 587 (NC)
« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2016, 08:05:21 PM »

FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.

US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.

US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Obviously, upgrading will be needed, but FHWA probably will. I don't like the number chosen, though. #Interstate187
Logged
Apparently Im a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 545
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: June 21, 2021, 12:55:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #3 on: November 15, 2016, 08:29:25 PM »

FHWA still needs to sign off on it, though I'm pretty sure they will. NCDOT appears to be coordinating with FHWA and FHWA usually goes along with AASHTO's decisions.

US-264 is already interstate standard between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. All that is needed to bring US-264 to interstate standards between the Wilson/Greene County line and I-587's ending point at Exit 73 in Greenville is widening the outside shoulders to 10ft. They're currently only 4ft.

US-264 between Sims just west of I-95 and Zebulon will need more than shoulder widening. The overhead bridge clearances will need to be increased, either by replacing the bridges or lowering the highway.
Obviously, upgrading will be needed, but FHWA probably will. I don't like the number chosen, though. #Interstate187

Was it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO? I hope it was the FHWA because it makes absolutely no sense why they would call this road I-587. I dislike the the choice I-87 already but at least there was kinda a reason for it(the historic dates). Why do I-587 when there already is one? Is NC trying to be the first state to duplicate a 3DI? Whats wrong with I-187,I-387,I-987 or even I-687? I have no problem with US-264 becoming an interstate but definitely agree with Interstate 69 Fan and really hope that number gets changed.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 151
  • Age: 39
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: June 19, 2021, 11:02:18 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #4 on: November 15, 2016, 08:57:22 PM »

Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot. But certainly other I-x87's to choose from that would not be duplicates (187, 387, 987). Although the existing I-587 is certainly an odd one.

As for bridges between Sims and Zebulon- what are the clearances? The bridges look fairly modern to me, so it can't be by much. (A foot or less, perhaps.) Might the easiest solution be to just lower the road by a foot or so on either side of the overpasses?
Logged

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 545
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: June 21, 2021, 12:55:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #5 on: November 15, 2016, 09:14:02 PM »

Wouldn't be the first duplicated 3di by a longshot.

Oops. I meant it say it would be the first time that two 2d interstates with the same number that don't connect would also have the same numbered 3di. Ex. I-684 only exists on the eastern I-84 and not the western one.
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 09:36:31 PM »

Was it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO?

It was AASHTO. See pages 7 & 8:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Jmiles32

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 545
  • Age: 21
  • Location: Blacksburg, VA
  • Last Login: June 21, 2021, 12:55:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2016, 09:44:22 PM »

Was it the FHWA that turned NCDOT's proposed I-36 and I-89 into future I-42 and I-87 or was that AASHTO?

It was AASHTO. See pages 7 & 8:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/USRN%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May25%2c2016.pdf

Well then I guess I-587 is here to stay
Logged
Aspiring Transportation Planner at Virginia Tech. Go Hokies!

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2016, 09:48:28 PM »

As for bridges between Sims and Zebulon- what are the clearances? The bridges look fairly modern to me, so it can't be by much. (A foot or less, perhaps.) Might the easiest solution be to just lower the road by a foot or so on either side of the overpasses?

NCDOT Secretary Nick Tennyson brought up the issue of bridge clearances during a radio interview in September. The bridges between Sims and Zebulon are older than those between I-795 and Greenville.

http://publicradioeast.org/post/greenville-would-benefit-us-264-interstate-designation

As you mentioned, the bridges aren't that much lower. I agree that NCDOT will probably lower the highway rather than replace the bridges. That's what they're currently doing on I-85 between Henderson and the Virginia state line.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7427
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:21 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2016, 11:27:48 PM »

Insanity.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kurumi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1941
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 11:00:02 PM
    • kurumi.com
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #10 on: November 16, 2016, 12:36:23 AM »

Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 533
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: June 22, 2021, 07:55:01 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #11 on: November 16, 2016, 02:08:53 AM »

Who cares that there's already an existing I-587? The one in NY is really questionable and pointless since it contains no interchanges whatsoever.

The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.

cjk374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2239
  • The road less travelled is well worn under my feet

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Simsboro, LA
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 02:51:25 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #12 on: November 16, 2016, 05:47:41 AM »

The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.

Does Fritzowl work for NCDOT???   :bigass:  :pan:
Logged
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7427
  • Last Login: Today at 12:14:21 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #13 on: November 16, 2016, 09:40:31 AM »

The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.

Does Fritzowl work for NCDOT???   :bigass:  :pan:

Somebody beat me to this joke.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #14 on: November 16, 2016, 10:51:18 AM »

The real question is: Why the heck does NC need so many interstates? I guess they want every freeway to be an interstate; if that's so, I can completely understand.

Not every freeway in NC is planned to become an interstate. There are plenty of freeways in the state without I-shields.

NCDOT usually doesn't seek an interstate designation unless there is strong support for it at the local level. Greenville & Pitt County have been practically screaming for US-264's upgrade since 2012. They didn't get anywhere then because they had virtually no support from the surrounding counties, who were more focused on upgrading US-70 to a freeway between I-40 near Garner and Morehead City, though an interstate designation for US-70 was not planned at the time. Most of the counties along the US-70 corridor also carried a lot of political weight in the state legislature.

So, Greenville mayor Allen Thomas met with Kinston mayor BJ Murphy in early 2013 and came up with the "Quad East" interstate(s) idea. It was a "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" kinda deal. Fast forward to 2016 and I-42, I-87, and now I-587 are born. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...

http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/

There's also another possible future interstate in the works, which would make up the last part of the Quad East interstate system. It was originally planned to run from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston to Greenville using the CF Harvey Parkway and NC-11, but that has now been expanded to include a connection to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel by following US-13 north of Greenville, which would give Greenville and the Global TransPark in Kinston interstate access to the Hampton Roads metro in Virginia. The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act was introduced in Congress in September that would make it federal law if passed. I expect they'll re-introduce the bill next year. If it passes, it'll probably be attached to a much larger transportation bill, similar to how I-42, I-87 and I-795's extension got tacked onto the FAST Act.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 702
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 05:35:11 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #15 on: November 16, 2016, 04:29:54 PM »

Whats wrong with I-187,I-387,I-987 or even I-687? I have no problem with US-264 becoming an interstate but definitely agree with Interstate 69 Fan and really hope that number gets changed.
It's a good question. NCDOT doesn't like interstate numbers to duplicate existing state highway designations. However, I believe there is no NC 187 and no NC 387, so those numbers were available.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2814
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:23:59 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #16 on: November 16, 2016, 04:43:14 PM »

Whats wrong with I-187,I-387,I-987 or even I-687? I have no problem with US-264 becoming an interstate but definitely agree with Interstate 69 Fan and really hope that number gets changed.
It's a good question. NCDOT doesn't like interstate numbers to duplicate existing state highway designations. However, I believe there is no NC 187 and no NC 387, so those numbers were available.

I thought NCDOT's decision to use I-587 was odd too, given that it has an interchange with NC-581 in Bailey. Granted, it's not the exact same number but the first two digits are the same.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3041
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: June 21, 2021, 10:06:53 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #17 on: November 16, 2016, 05:06:49 PM »

I look forward to seeing an Interstate 587/795 duplex. North Carolina will be the only state with two 3-digit Interstates duplexed along a single road. What will the length of the 587/795 duplex be compared to the 785/840 and 271/480 duplexes.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11111
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 01:25:20 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2016, 08:48:29 AM »

This is interesting.  Another NC Interstate designated to a US Route freeway.  I am amazed just at how many interstates have been granted to the Tar Heel State.  I knew this one was going to be one eventually, but IMO I think that 587 is not the right number for it.  Heck an even number x87 would work being it connects with two other (or it will someday) interstates.

The interesting part is they moved over the existing US routes onto these freeways and now the move over seems irrelevant now.  The old roads being mostly alternate routes of it, could have been left as is and the new freeways could have been designated as interstates to the get go.  Now, we have the unnecessary concurrency.

VDOT did that with transferring VA 168 to VA 143.  It moved it on to I-64 only to have it decommissioned later so time and funds were wasted in altering an alignment to be later removed.  Yes, I know that NCDOT won't remove US 264 like VDOT did to truncating VA 168, but still its a waste. You now have the burden with extra money of adding new shields and all for that if they had known originally that it would be part of the interstate system, US 264 would have remained its surface road alignment.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3346
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:48:16 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #19 on: November 17, 2016, 11:13:34 AM »


VDOT did that with transferring VA 168 to VA 143.  It moved it on to I-64 only to have it decommissioned later so time and funds were wasted in altering an alignment to be later removed.  Yes, I know that NCDOT won't remove US 264 like VDOT did to truncating VA 168, but still its a waste. You now have the burden with extra money of adding new shields and all for that if they had known originally that it would be part of the interstate system, US 264 would have remained its surface road alignment.

It was the other way around...I-64 was added to existing VA 168 or it was a simultaneous assignment to new freeway segments.  There were parts of VA 168 that were on the I-64 footpath for nearly 20 years before it was brought to interstate standards (Hampton near the HRBT across to Norfolk and the camp Peary area), so the route needed a number that wasn't the interstate...

Although VA 168 could certainly have been removed from some I-64 sections sooner than it actually was, there was a time when the designation might have been needed, as the FHWA tried to get Virginia to drop I-64 between I-664 and I-564 from the interstate system in 1968.
Logged

orulz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 151
  • Age: 39
  • Location: NC
  • Last Login: June 19, 2021, 11:02:18 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #20 on: November 17, 2016, 12:37:34 PM »

In my opinion, when interstate status is given to the whole corridor for routes like US 64, 264, and 70, they should move the US routes back onto the original old/alternate/business routes
where possible. IMO having multiple highways of the same number can be confusing.

US 264 in particular has a completely contiguous, well-maintained, fairly modern 2-lane highway clear from Zebulon to Greenville that is now signed as 264 ALT for most of its length.

US 64 has a contiguous route too but some parts of it are pretty ancient and would need to be upgraded, particularly between Zebulon and Spring Hope but probably a few other stretches as well.

US 70 is more of a basket case where gaps abound. These are mostly places where the existing US 70 is still on its original alignment AND where I-42 when it is complete is not going to move. There would be gaps between Princeton and Goldsboro, then between La Grange and Kinston, a small gap between the end of te future Kinston bypass and Dover, and finally between James City and Havelock. So one could easily question whether it would be worth it or not.

LGL44VL

Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12122
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 10:19:09 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2016, 01:07:39 PM »

Agreed.  I've never liked the idea of having a useless overlap between a US route (or any other route) and an interstate when the original alignment is still available and decent.  IMO keep the overlaps to where necessary and don't have overlaps for the sake of having overlaps.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3346
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 07:48:16 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2016, 01:26:16 PM »

North Carolina has a long history of returning US routes from interstate overlays...

The ones people here are most familiar with:  US 117 and I-795; I-440 and US 70-401; US 220 through Ellerbe

There was also a substantial return for US 70 (Greensboro to Hillsborough)
US 64 Conover to Statesville
US 29 on Bypasses of both Charlotte and Salisbury
Logged

Interstate 69 Fan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 488
  • You cannot deny that I-69 will never be completed.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Last Login: June 23, 2021, 04:30:47 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2016, 03:08:53 PM »

I say "North Carolina, that's enough Future Interstates. Hold off until 2017."

However, I don't like I-587. As I've said, I-587 needs to be renumbered.
This is how NY's I-x87 are today
I-187 = Redesignated as I-287
I-287 = Existing
I-387 = Redesignated as an extension of I-87
I-487 = Cancelled
I-587 = Existing, however not up to Interstate Standards
I-687 = Cancelled
I-787 = Is Existing
I-887 & I-987 = Never Designated or existed
I think I-587 in NC should be either I-187 or I-987. Saving even numbers in case NC goes with any bypasses.  ;-)
Logged
Apparently Im a fan of I-69.  Who knew.

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1276
  • Last Login: June 20, 2021, 07:12:46 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #24 on: November 17, 2016, 03:55:24 PM »

I look forward to seeing an Interstate 587/795 duplex. North Carolina will be the only state with two 3-digit Interstates duplexed along a single road. What will the length of the 587/795 duplex be compared to the 785/840 and 271/480 duplexes.

4-5 miles
Logged

 


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.