AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The next forum trivia night will take place on OCTOBER 30, 2019 at 8:15 PM Eastern.

Author Topic: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)  (Read 33716 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2904
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:09 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #225 on: December 02, 2019, 06:45:01 PM »

Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?
I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:06 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #226 on: December 02, 2019, 07:02:56 PM »

Honestly, I wish I-44 or even I-46 was planned so we can honestly fix that issue. Or are you trying to say it should say I-587 WEST and I-587 EAST?
I-587 should be east-west... I can't logically see any 2-d running the length of US-264.
Unless it's to Washington... maybe a 2-d can be signed. I was honestly saying that if I-46 was used instead of I-87 then it would make more sense.

If you look at I-195 in New Jersey, they are east-west.
Example


Logged

X99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 559
  • Location: South Dakota
  • Last Login: Today at 06:42:13 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #227 on: December 03, 2019, 12:07:21 AM »


EDIT #2 - Surprisingly got a response, they said they will get back with an answer tomorrow after "research".


If only SDDOT did that... I could show them some of my somewhat realistic Fictional Highways plans and know that someone in the right place actually took notice.
Logged
The cities I build in Minecraft are better laid out than the one I currently live in.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2391
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 04:04:28 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #228 on: December 03, 2019, 01:05:48 PM »

I agree Interstate 587 should be signed east-west. The only rational for signing 587 north-south is if the route were to replace Interstate 795 in its entirety (which, of course, is not planned).
Logged

Finrod

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 189
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Atlanta GA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:54:14 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #229 on: December 03, 2019, 02:05:15 PM »

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.
Logged
Internet member since 1987.

Hate speech is a nonsense concept; the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

People who use their free speech to try to silence others' free speech are dangerous fools.

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:06 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #230 on: December 03, 2019, 02:42:37 PM »

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.
Ye, but it looks retarded honestly. It's not the same when going from I-95 in New Jersey to I-195.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2287
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #231 on: December 03, 2019, 02:54:17 PM »

In addition to I-587 being signed north-south not making any sense, they would be signing it the opposite of I-87.  If you got on I-587 at Wilson and headed toward Raleigh, you'd be taking North 587 which would then dump you onto South 87 going into Raleigh.

Yet another reason it makes no sense. :banghead:
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2904
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:09 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #232 on: December 03, 2019, 05:23:25 PM »

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.

Somebody needs to do some further research. That's not how it works with 3d routes. Look at I-464 and I-664 in Hampton Roads for example. Both north-south routes and signed as such despite I-64 being east-west.

Looking closer, North Carolina doesn't have any 3d routes that change directions from its parent.

I-140 - East-West
I-240 - East-West
I-440 - East-West
I-540 - East-West
I-840 - East-West
I-277 - North-South
I-285 - North-South
I-795 - North-South
I-295 - North-South
I-785 - North-South
I-485 - Outer / Inner

It might be a standard procedure, but this is DEFINITELY a route that should be east-west, similar to how I-464 and I-664 are north-south despite I-64 being east-west. It would make no sense if those routes were east-west as they're clearly north-south routes, I-664 even joining with I-64 to create a circumferential beltway around the Hampton Roads metropolitan area.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 05:36:56 PM by sprjus4 »
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1195
  • Age: 55
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 12:08:48 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #233 on: December 03, 2019, 05:37:20 PM »

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter. About 10 years ago, when the Boston newspapers actually had transportation beat writers and weekly columns, a reader wrote in regarding why Route 3 is a US route north of Boston but a state route to the south (what roadgeek hasn't asked this question?). The writer passed it along to a Mass Highway official he knew. The response was that since the route north of Boston crosses the state line into New Hampshire it needs a US shield, but because the route to the south of Boston is all in Mass. it's given a state route shield. Huh?

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2904
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:09 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #234 on: December 03, 2019, 05:47:51 PM »

Here was my response. I'm not expecting much from a Twitter rep, but I plan on directly contacting NCDOT regarding this issue especially once the state applies to get the interstate highway actually sign posted once upgrades to I-95 are completed, if they. As seen in my response, the signage as east-west is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.

Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:06 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #235 on: December 03, 2019, 08:03:42 PM »

This is stupid! Is it because of NCiDiOT or whatever they think is the best? I think NCDOT needs to resign I-87 as I-44 (the original plan) or I-46 if they can't do simple things of just making I-587 an east-west route.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2287
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #236 on: December 03, 2019, 08:57:03 PM »

What a crock of shit. There are plenty of examples of 2d N/S interstates having spurs signed E/W. The I-195 spurs in Maryland, NJ, and Maine are perfect examples.

As seen in my response, the signage as east-west north-south is illogical, confusing, and outright stupid.

FTFY.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2019, 09:05:28 PM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2287
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #237 on: December 03, 2019, 09:02:55 PM »

There's been speculation on City-Data forum that NCDOT did it because it's an odd number and odd-numbered interstates are signed N/S. Problem with that theory is that rule only applies to 2-digit interstates. 3-digit interstates can be signed in any direction, no matter the number.
It amazes me when a state transportation agency does not know the basics of interstate numbering, or US Route numbering for that matter.

Hell, the guy from NCDOT that replied to me last month regarding the Goldsboro Bypass was obviously unaware that FHWA has already approved signing it as I-42.
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:06 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #238 on: December 04, 2019, 08:32:02 PM »

It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".
Logged

Roadsguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1573
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Here
  • Last Login: Today at 06:13:46 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #239 on: December 04, 2019, 10:20:23 PM »

It's also probably gonna be like former I-495 from Raleigh to I-540 interchange where that route got signed "North-South" and not "east-west".

At least that had some logic behind it, as I-495 only linked Raleigh to I-95 and served as a designation for north-south traffic to follow. I don't know if what NCDOT's Twitter reply was talking about applies to all 3di's or just spurs, but if the former, I may now retroactively hate the logic for I-495's directionality too...
Logged
[thing you don't like] is better than [thing you like]

Traffic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14
  • Location: Raleigh, NC
  • Last Login: December 10, 2019, 10:34:43 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #240 on: December 04, 2019, 11:37:20 PM »

NCDOT is under the impression that AASHTO requires ALL odd numbered interstates N-S and ALL even interstates E-W, regardless of whether it is 2 digit or 3 digit.  This is what I was told when asked why I-495 was N/S, even though it was concurrent with US 64 (E/W) between Raleigh and Rocky Mount.  This is wrong, as only (1 and ) 2 digit interstates are required to follow this format.  There is no standard convention for 3 digit interstates, as it is left up to judgement based on the purpose of the route.

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.   This designation is in line with other routes on the East Coast which are diagonal.  Even numbers (26 and 16) go NW-SE, while odd numbers such as 81 and 85 are more SW-NE.  Even the proposed I-42 goes NW-SE.  Based on the SW-NE angle, 87 as N/S route was better than an even number, but given it's shorter length I don't know that it really mattered.

The fact is there is no rule that says 587 has to be N/S, especially backwards as proposed.  Loops are always hard, as they may change directions multiple times (such as I-495 around DC, I-695 around Baltimore, or I-610 around Houston), but spurs do not loop and generally go from point A to B so they are more directional.  They should be signed based on their direction, not a "rule" based on their number.  Their number is based on their parent and has nothing to do with the direction of the highway.  Here are some examples to prove this theory:

I-190, I-390, I-590, and I-990 in NY are N/S
I-476 in PA is N/S
I-195 in NJ is E/W
I-270 in MD is N/S
I-595 in FL is E/W
I-710 in CA is N/S
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2287
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: Today at 09:32:51 AM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #241 on: December 05, 2019, 06:34:57 AM »

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
« Last Edit: December 05, 2019, 06:41:28 AM by LM117 »
Logged
I dont know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch! - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2904
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:09 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #242 on: December 05, 2019, 06:58:39 AM »

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6154
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:16:00 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #243 on: December 05, 2019, 06:23:50 PM »

NCDOT did not request I-87 (I think I-44, 46, or 48 was proposed), but AASHTO selected I-87, so that required the N/S designation, even though it's proposed route is more of E/W orientation.

NCDOT asked for I-89, but AASHTO changed it to I-87 because they think there's a better chance of I-87 connecting to I-87 in NY. Yeeeeaaahhh...that connection ain't gonna happen.

Good thing the I-795 corridor isn't a spur of I-40. Otherwise, I'd be driving E/W between Faison and Wilson. :pan:
Also if I-785 and I-285 were I-40 spurs.

The whole 2016 process whereby I-87 was selected reads like a Monty Python sketch where no party was on the same page as the others (and likely exacerbated by an open bar at SCOURN's spring '16 meeting in Des Moines).   The obvious choice for a number for this corridor was an even number in the available "pool", adjusted for the US highways within NC and VA, which would have left 46, 54, and 56.  But NCDOT doesn't duplicate routes, so they would have had to renumber whatever state route replicated the choice -- and they pissed & moaned about the political fallout stemming from folks having to change addresses along those routes, so they came up with I-89, reasoning that I-85 west of there had a sizeable E-W section as well, and NC 89 was far enough away from the proposed corridor that they could fudge the duplication aspect.  But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.  Now -- if that rationale was reasonably applied, the even numbers should have been reconsidered and one selected -- but, as the late John Belushi might have said, noooooooooooo!  They rubber-stamped the odd-number concept but changed it to 87 for both the reasons cited above -- but also as a "commemoration" for historical events that occurred in years ending in "87" (the founding of a regional college, etc.). 

This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved;  NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS.  But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation.  They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2904
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:10:09 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #244 on: December 05, 2019, 06:38:56 PM »

This is an instance where blame can be spread around to pretty much all parties involved;  NCDOT for bowing and scraping to local politics, AASHTO/SCOURN for just plain dumb reasoning (or lack thereof), and FHWA for going along with all this BS.  But it looks like with I-587, the chickens have finally come home to roost with still another dumbass set of bureaucratic nonsense informed by misinformation.  They made their bed with I-87; they can damn well lie in it regarding I-587!
Agreed. As I've pointed out before, while the I-87 corridor is generally more east-west orientated, north-south is also somewhat reasonable. One way to look at it is going Raleigh <-> Norfolk, you either go SOUTH into North Carolina, or NORTH into Virginia. Being in Hampton Roads, I've always considered Raleigh to be -south-, less so -west-, though on a map it is geographically west.

But I-587 makes no sense. It's a due east-west routing, and Greenville and Raleigh are due west of each other. Not only is the number stupid, it makes no sense. Am I going north or going south when going east/west?
   
Logged

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10592
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 01:42:28 PM
    • New York State Roads
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #245 on: December 05, 2019, 08:49:34 PM »

But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.
If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 898
  • Age: 17
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 06:49:06 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #246 on: December 05, 2019, 10:39:52 PM »

Ok, so I-587 was proposed and not I-187 because NCDOT wants to copy New York and their messed up I-587 which isn't really a freeway?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6154
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:16:00 PM
Re: Future Interstate 587 (Zebulon-Greenville)
« Reply #247 on: December 06, 2019, 04:14:25 AM »

But AASHTO, in their finite wisdom, rejected 89 and proposed 87 as the number despite that state highway being considerably closer to the corridor than the state selection, stating that conflict with existing state highways wasn't a sufficient factor to negate a route selection.
If only they had said that when California wanted an interstate to connect I-580 and I-880.

Which should have been a relocated I-480, since that designation was deleted back in 1965 and available for reuse.  The CA 480 Embarcadero freeway, still standing when the I-238 designation was approved back in 1984, could easily have been renumbered -- no one in S.F. gives a shit about such arcane details. 
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.