Talk:Interstate 87 (North Carolina)

North End-South End
I have been seeing a lot of articles saying this road would we designated north-south. But wouldn't be east-west because of the way US 64 is from Rocky Mount to Raleigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's North-South because it's an odd-digit Interstate Highway and that is a standard interstate rule (they are looser on US Routes and state decides on State Routes). Also, if you look on a map, the highway does do a gradual northeasterly direction, so it still fits (unlike I-26 signed east-west, but goes north-south).  Even I-485 has a North-South designation included with its Inner-Outer designation along its routing.  However, if for some bizarre reason NCDOT signs it east-west, we are fortunate that the begin point still at same location, so no re-write necessary beyond directional changes. --WashuOtaku (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted image of new signage along route indicating it is indeed north-south in designation. So, this confirms it now. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsigned
I just went on the new section on I 495 yesterday and there are no signs indicating an interstate on the road, on I 440, or on I 540 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the decision to designate it 495 was only made a few weeks ago.  Give it some time.-- Jayron  32  14:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia) really should be merged with Interstate 495 for various reasons. The main reason is that there are currently two or more proposed numbers for the expanded corridor in question and we really can't favor one over the other and keep it encyclopedic. Also, the two articles are both rather short and a merger would support content from both pages from this single corridor. Overall, I think this would be a win-win situation. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Against -- The reason is simple, I-44 (or I-50) is simply a proposed route that is still well into the future; the interstate number is not even set in stone here. We can mention that I-495 is just the first step of a bigger plan, which it does, but we shouldn't incorporate unofficial proposals until there is real momentum for it. In my opinion, the I-44 article should be deleted instead since it is already covered in Future Interstate Highways.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Right now, the proposed Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate has not even been officially approved and no final number has been chosen. The information about the proposed corridor can be covered in a Future section of the I-495 article as that highway is the first part of the corridor to become an Interstate.  Dough   4872   00:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But it already mentions that now. --WashuOtaku (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But we shouldn't have a separate article if I-495 already covers the details. However, if it is desired to keep a separate article, maybe use a generic name like Raleigh–Norfolk Interstate Highway until the number is chosen.  Dough   4872   03:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is why it should simply be deleted. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Against &mdash; Interstate 44 (North Carolina–Virginia) should be redirected to its subsection of Future Interstate Highways.  V C  01:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat, eh? The I-44 article should definitely be merged/redirected with something, though. It's way too soon to cover it with it's own article. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 02:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Unopened Interchanges?
The exit list table has every exit past I-540 as unopened. While I-495 is not sign there, the interchanges are in fact open. How should we mark this? The distinctions seems to be based on the status of whether or not the highway is signed "future" at that point, but it seems like "unopened" is the wrong tag. DCTransit (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The notes indicate that they are there, but not up to interstate standards; so it is not hiding the fact its open. I-495, however, isn't signed there, thus it is un-open to it.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstate 495 (North Carolina). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505194459/http://www.letsgetmoving.org/priorities/interstate-495-future-i-44 to http://www.letsgetmoving.org/priorities/interstate-495-future-i-44/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Move since decommissioned?
Since 495 has been decomissioned and replaced with 87, is there any reason not to edit and move this article? —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I am glad you started a talk section regarding this and yes, I-495 is now decommissioned, but several changes need to also be made to the article. A lot of it isn't just replace "495" with "87," this is a rewrite of the article in several ways and a organization of history of what was I-495.  Since now I'm home from work, I can start making the corrective edits.  Also, the place holder was Interstate 87 in North Carolina.  --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies are in order. After discussion with WikiProject U.S. Roads‎ Team, I didn't realize that split interstates were handled in this naming convention compared to what I have been used too.  Apologies for my reaction on the naming convention and thank you for making your edits on the page.  -WashuOtaku (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Exit numbers?
At some point in moving and rewriting this article, someone has added new exit numbers in the junction table. These exit numbers, however, are entirely fanciful. Currently the exits are still numbered with US 64's mileage markers, and no changes have been made to the exit tabs. I also see no sources for prospective or future exit numbers. We need to remove this part of the table if it isn't based on the data on the ground or on reliable sources saying the exit numbers will be changed. -- Jayron 32 16:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel like I have seen somewhere that the exits would be renumbered for I-87, starting with 1 as the first exit. Now I have to remember where I saw it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The source material for the new exit numbers is from the blog, Goodbye Interstate 495; Hello Interstate 87, by Adam Price. Since a blog is not a valid reference, I had no legit way to reference the new exit numbers, but can attest that the source material is legit because it is from NCDOT. If NCDOT had a page I could link too, I would. In the coming months I am sure they will replace the exit numbers around the same time the remaining I-495 shields are removed. Hope this helps. --WashuOtaku (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * We're in catch-22 land, aren't we? The blog has good information from NCDOT, but we have no WP-grade provenance that it's from NCDOT. —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Some casual Googling of NCDOT and I can believe that those documents exist and are available to cite. The fun part will be finding the needle in the haystack. –Fredddie™ 02:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 87 exit list request
* Copied and modified from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to avoid it being archived, Thanks! DiscoA340 (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)*

Interstate 87 currently does not have the "future" exits in the exit list. If anyone has the time or can do it quick, I would greatly appreciate it!

I-87 Exit list from malmeroads.net

Thank you and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Template:Sofixit, but also - are you asking us to use a WP:SPS to source this information? --Rschen7754 04:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be noted the website, which is WP:SPS, says "Potential Future Exit Number" not official with sources or anything. Sorry, but we cannot be speculative on this. --WashuOtaku (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Does NCDOT have signing plans online? That would give it some authority. –Fredddie™ 06:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the issue of it being self-published. I do know that there are five sections on the route that are already graded, 1. From the current eastern terminus I-87 to US-64 in Williamston, 2. Windsor Bypass, 3. Edenton Bypass, 4. Elizabeth City Bypass, and 5. VA 166 to I-64. I was able to find the Final Feasibility report by the NCDOT that lists out the route segments in NC starting Page 16 and has visual designs of each section starting Page 46. Thanks and have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As the Jctint suite of templates is at present, there is no future exit functionality. I don't think it's worth adding for one article. Like Rschen7754 said, read Template:Sofixit and add them yourself to the notes column. –Fredddie™ 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)