Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.
Quote from: SSR_317 on Today at 02:06:34 PMYou mentioned the whole corridor at the end of your post and seemed to imply that this interchange was the only thing preventing I-11 from being signed from I-40 to the Nevada border. To get that finished, they would also need to address the stuff north of I-40, and quite a few more things to the south, not "just" the ones you listed.Quote from: vdeane on Today at 12:53:43 PMAnd what of the part north of this interchange? There's even a traffic light.That signalized intersection will (eventually) be replaced by an interchange. I was talking about the part from US 95's East Junction with I-40 south through Wikieup to just north of Wickenburg.
Quote from: ilpt4u on Today at 08:29:49 PMWould AASHTO or FHWA consider not giving final approval to sign the final segment of 69 being constructed now and also not along 465 until the mileage is fixed?
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 22, 2024, 11:00:12 PMQuote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 22, 2024, 10:19:47 PMI agree... I can understand the ramps for redundancy, but 2 lane flyovers seem a bit excessive. Well... at least they will never be congested!Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 11, 2024, 08:37:28 PMI don't get the need for full access at all 3 interchanges.
I was wondering this as well. Who is going from I-40 westbound to I-74 westbound or eastbound, or I-74 (either direction) to I-40 EB? There are no plans to continue the beltway south/west, right? Seems like a massive interchange for very little traffic.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on April 23, 2024, 08:20:24 PMThe design year traffic volume is at least 20 years from the time construction is planned to start. The design year is 2040 for this project, which is now the estimated let date. The problem is the final planning document was signed by the FHWA in 2018. Things kind of get etched into stone at that point. The final design plans can't deviate very much from what was complete when the planning document was signed without starting the planning and review process all over again. Design and planning is expensive and lead to further delays. An updated traffic forecast may still happen, but unless the forecast shows the proposed design won't operate at an acceptable level of service in the new design year, the design is unlikely to change. So, unless there are drastic changes to the land use in the area and/or significant increases in traffic volumes, the design probably won't change at this point. Traffic counts at the interchange from the past several years don't really reflect that, but the latest counts are from 2022.
I can think of several other projects off hand that have traffic forecasts that are many years old with no sign of construction starting within the next decade and have wondered if they will remain unchanged or not.
I still don't know why a SPUI wasn't considered for this location and why NCDOT doesn't build them now. They specifically cited the right-of-way limitations at this interchange as a reason for not going with a different design than what was selected. It's been several years (decade?) since a SPUI was constructed in North Carolina, and I only know of one that is still proposed at Glenwood Ave./Brier Creek Pkwy. in Raleigh. Yeah, they're expensive, but it seems like these types of locations would warrant the compact design and associated cost.
Quote from: Rothman on Today at 06:35:26 PMPsst. That's because CCs are becoming obsolete with modern data collection methods...