U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Coastal North Carolina
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 10-26-2016, 11:59 AM
Location: Greenville, NC
1,069 posts, read 985,225 times
Reputation: 591


Oddly on the Google Maps iPhone app the imagery is so old that cars are driving down 10th and Hardee & Cox Welding building is still standing. But, if you use the Google Earth app, it's up to date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 10-26-2016, 12:52 PM
Location: Danville, VA
4,634 posts, read 3,044,259 times
Reputation: 2918
Bad news for Greenville. NCDOT has submitted an application to AASHTO for "Future I-587" for US-264 from US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon to the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) in Greenville. AASHTO's Standing Committee On Highways (SCOH) denied the request.

The request and reasons for rejection can be found on pages 47 & 48.


One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.
In other words, unless the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress, US-264 will never become an interstate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2016, 01:29 PM
1,021 posts, read 1,004,031 times
Reputation: 367
Well, that sucks. Why didn't they make sure to add a provision to it so that it connects back to future i-87 near Bethel? That would have made it a loop, right?.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2016, 02:27 PM
Location: Danville, VA
4,634 posts, read 3,044,259 times
Reputation: 2918
Originally Posted by michealbond View Post
Well, that sucks. Why didn't they make sure to add a provision to it so that it connects back to future i-87 near Bethel? That would have made it a loop, right?.
It would've been a weird looking loop. However, NCDOT wants two separate interstates, one for US-264 and one for US-13/NC-11 between Kinston and Bethel, which is what the ENC Gateway Act would accomplish if it passes Congress.

AASHTO's reasons don't make a damn bit of sense to me. They claim that it's not a spur. Have they even looked at a map of the route?! It's no different than I-795, other than being longer. They also claim that it's already using "interstate highways". Wow, it uses what, 3-4 miles of I-795 in Wilson? Whoop-de-doo!

Then they say that it doesn't connect to other states. I-587 itself wouldn't, but it would lead to I-87, which connects to I-40, a major cross-country interstate.

AASHTO is full of sh*t, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2016, 02:37 PM
2,401 posts, read 3,360,902 times
Reputation: 1406
I think that I-795 designation that was questionably pushed through has affected 264.

They are saying you could extend I-795 to Zebulon from Wilson, that's my take.

If they did that...then maybe you could designate the stretch from Wilson to Greenville to Bethel as a I-87 spur, which could then be an alternate route to I-87 from I-95.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-26-2016, 03:32 PM
Location: Danville, VA
4,634 posts, read 3,044,259 times
Reputation: 2918
NCDOT will probably wait until if/when the ENC Gateway Act passes Congress before they'll attempt another request for Future I-587. The bill will have to be re-introduced in Congress early next year after the elections, which means that there won't likely be any movement on the bill until sometime in the second half of next year, if the FAST Act was any indication.

EDIT: However, now that I think on it, if the FHWA says yes to NCDOT's application, then AASHTO would have no choice but to approve Future I-587. That was the case with I-795. AASHTO denied NCDOT's first request for I-795 in the spring of 2007 for the same reasons, but FHWA told NCDOT that if they let a contract to fix an accident prone spot on US-264 in Wilson, they would add I-795 to the Interstate system. So once NCDOT received a letter from the FHWA showing the conditional approval of I-795, they re-submitted their request, along with FHWA's letter, during the fall 2007 meeting. AASHTO approved I-795.

Last edited by LM117; 10-26-2016 at 03:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2016, 05:14 AM
Location: Danville, VA
4,634 posts, read 3,044,259 times
Reputation: 2918
WNCT wasted no time.

Request to make US 264 an Interstate denied
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2016, 01:26 PM
Location: Danville, VA
4,634 posts, read 3,044,259 times
Reputation: 2918
This is interesting. According to Mayor Allen Thomas, I-587 may still get approved after all.

Request to make US 264 an interstate still under consideration

The push to get US 265 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isnít over yet.

Thatís according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasnít denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. Itís only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

ďAnd it can be measured, literally, itís monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. Weíre going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,Ē Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCTís Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

Itís important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2016, 07:15 AM
1,021 posts, read 1,004,031 times
Reputation: 367
Greenville & surrounding towns received a lot of money for roads from the state.

The 10 towns in Pitt County will receive nearly $3 million for road work as part of the state’s annual appropriation of Powell Bill funding, the state announced last week.

The N.C. Department of Transportation distributes the money to support municipalities in the maintenance, repair, construction, reconstruction, widening or improving of roads, in addition to the planning, construction and maintenance of bikeways, greenways and sidewalks.

Funding is determined by a formula that bases 75 percent of allocations on population and 25 percent based on the number of locally maintained street miles.

Greenville received the most local funding at more than $2.2 million and was among 22 cities to receive at least $1 million, the state reported. Winterville, Pitt’s second-largest municipality, received just more than $260,000.
In all, more than $147 million was dispersed to 508 cities and towns throughout North Carolina. The first half of the funding was dispersed on Sept. 28, and the rest will be distributed by Dec. 30.

“I am pleased that these funds will help hundreds of communities upgrade or repair their transportation systems and fulfill our goal of better connecting North Carolinians to jobs, education, healthcare, recreation and each other,” Gov. Pat McCrory said in a news release. “These improvements will benefit residents and visitors through safety upgrades, increased connectivity and new economic opportunities.”

The 2015 budget increased the amount of Powell Bill funding to $147.5 million per year, compared to past years when funding was in part determined by gas tax revenue.

The fund is named for Junius K. Powell, a former state senator and mayor of Whiteville who was a primary sponsor of the 1951 bill to help the state’s cities with urban road problems. The first allocation of Powell Bill funds was for $4.5 million and was distributed to 386 cities and towns.

For more information and a complete list of cities and towns receiving funds and the amounts, visit


Ayden $150,658.96
Bethel $51,545.80
Falkland $2,004.75
Fountain $14,761.69
Farmville $140,929.28
Greenville $2,201,441.42
Grifton $75,854.16
Grimesland $13,426.37
Simpson $12,660.15
Winterville $260,092.42

Last edited by michealbond; 11-01-2016 at 07:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 07:26 AM
1,021 posts, read 1,004,031 times
Reputation: 367
Mentioned before, but now there's a full article about it . City redevelopment commission is not happy with GO Science:

Some members of Greenville’s Redevelopment Commission want to emphasize the “go” in the GO-Science Center on Dickinson Avenue if the organization does not show improvement.

The Redevelopment Commission during its meeting Tuesday appointed commission members Sharif Hatoum and Angela Marshall to serve on a subcommittee that will negotiate a lease between the GO-Science Center and the city.

The center is a private, not-for-profit organization designed to provide interactive, hands-on educational programs and traveling exhibits. The new facility houses these programs and exhibits, allowing the center to serve as a hub of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education in the eastern part of the state. The facility is supported by investments from local businesses, individuals, and philanthropic leaders and organizations.

The site at 729 Dickinson Ave. was purchased by the Redevelopment Commission in 2010 for $378,000, using 2006 Center City revitalization bond funds.

In 2013, the city entered a two-year lease with the GO-Science Center for $1 a year. A three-year lease proposal for $1 a year was presented to the Redevelopment Commission during its October meeting. Under the terms of the lease agreement:

* GO-Science had the option to extend the lease for two additional one-year terms upon written request;

• GO Science could terminate the lease with a 30-day notice, but the city could not.

Jeremy King, the commission’s chairman, said during an October meeting that he did not want to agree to a long-term lease with GO-Science without a termination clause for the city in the agreement. King cited “false representations” of the center’s progress and performance by its leadership as the reason for his view.

“The city purchased this property with the purpose of supporting GO-Science,” King said in October. “I don’t feel like the city got a good return on its investment. ... As a commission, we picked the wrong horse.”

The Redevelopment Commission approved a motion to form a subcommittee composed of commission members and GO-Science Center board members to negotiate a lease that would give the city the right to terminate the lease if certain performance goals are not met. The subcommittee was scheduled to present an updated lease proposal during Tuesday’s meeting but could not meet due to Hurricane Matthew and the subsequent flooding last month.

During Tuesday’s meeting, Hatoum and Marshall were appointed to represent the commission on the subcommittee, and commission members discussed what type of provisions should be included in the new lease agreement.

During the discussion, King suggested that the lease require the GO-Science board to replace the center’s executive director, Roger Connor.

“I’m not an advocate of the leadership at GO-Science,” King said. “... I would suggest the board hire someone with a science background.”

Redevelopment Commission members Judy Siguaw and Pat Dunn disagreed with a provision that would dictate personnel requirements to the center’s board.

“We are stepping into a management position if we do that,” Siguaw said. “I think that’s wrong. It is not our job to tell them how to run their business.”

“We haven’t put that type of stipulation into the theater deal,” Dunn said in reference to the sale of the historic theater building on Fifth Street to Raleigh-based developer CommunitySmith. “If we are going to dictate, there doesn’t need to be a subcommittee.”

All the commission members, however, agreed that some type of performance stipulations should be included in the lease agreement with the organization.

“They’ve already been in the building for seven years, and we haven’t seen any returns on our investment,” Hatoum said. “If we are going to continue down this road, we should be able to set reasonable expectations.”
The subcommittee will present an updated lease proposal for approval during the Redevelopment Commission’s Dec. 6 meeting.

“I think theoretically, GO-Science can be successful,” King said. “But I don’t believe that they have been successful. I think this organization has shown nothing but failure so far.

“In my mind they have failed,” he said. “... However, I will keep an open mind when I see the new lease.”
I've said before, I liked the idea of GO-Science. STEM education is definitely needed in the area. However, I believe the city may have been lead to believe, or misinterpreted the GO Science original presentation. I'm sure the city thought that GO Science would become a full fledged science museum. It has not done that.

The city is probably seeing dollar signs at every square inch of land they purchased in the Dickinson Ave area. They probably are ready to sell that patch of land to a private developer for a whole lot more than they paid for it.

I think they have been very generous with GO Science. I hope they can work something out with moving them to a nearby location.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Coastal North Carolina
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top