https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20I-495%20130220%20Route.pdf
Mapmikey
Interestingly, this is what the local MPO originally proposed, before changing their preference to I-44: http://people.duke.edu/~rmalme/ncfutintp.html
Is North Carolina going to make every little stretch of freeway into an interstate? If I were in charge of AASHTO I would ban NC from making any changes for 5 years.
I-495.. NCDOT seems to be really serious about making this stretch a interstate. I wouldn't want it to be I-495. It should be I-46.
That freeway isn't quite interstate standard around Nashville. The shoulders are kind of skimpy among other things. That section of freeway looks like it dates back to the 50s-60s, I wonder if they plan on upgrading it.
They probably will have to if they are serious about making that stretch a interstate spur... :no:
Quote from: Stalin on February 27, 2013, 09:35:43 PM
Is North Carolina going to make every little stretch of freeway into an interstate? If I were in charge of AASHTO I would ban NC from making any changes for 5 years.
Funny you bring this up, as a 30 year and counting resident of NC I felt for the longest time that this state didn't have enough interstate spurs. I'm thinking of the days (1980s, early 1990s before I-73/74 were thought of) when the only "main" interstate routes were 77, 95, 85, 40, and 26, with I-277 in Charlotte and I-440 in Raleigh the only spurs of note!
I-495 is debatable, I am kind of fond of I-285 happening for my hometown of Winston-Salem, and 73/74 are making huge advancements this year.
I-97 notwithstanding, isn't that really too short of a route to be a 2di?
other than 73/74, I don't think any of NC's interstates are all that absurd in numbering.
73 isn't bad a number... it's only 74 that's really gone AWOL from Cincy.
Unlike others (namely I-795), this one makes some modicum of sense. Given the high unlikelihood of US 1 ever being upgraded to freeway north of Raleigh, this provides an Interstate connection to/from points north on I-95 to Raleigh...a function similarly covered by I-40 for points south.
True, the shoulders may not be full-Interstate grade, but NCDOT would have to remedy that before they could sign it as I-495. As for the Nashville bypass, the original part of the bypass dates to 1963. It was originally a Super-2...I'm not sure when it was 4-laned, presumably sometime in the mid to late 70s when much of today's freeway between Eagle Rock and I-95 was built.
Since nothing has come through AASHTO's special committee on route numbering as of yet, I presume NCDOT is planning on submitting this to AASHTO and FHWA in the not-too-distant future.
It should also be noted that, if this were to go through, it would theoretically enable NCDOT to renumber I-540 to I-640 as it would then connect to two Interstate routes. Bob Malme suggests as much on his NC Interstate page that SPUI linked to.
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2013, 01:12:39 PM
Unlike others (namely I-795), this one makes some modicum of sense. Given the high unlikelihood of US 1 ever being upgraded to freeway north of Raleigh, this provides an Interstate connection to/from points north on I-95 to Raleigh...a function similarly covered by I-40 for points south.
I strongly agree. This makes for a very logical connection to Raleigh and I-440. I think it's a better way to go than I-85 via Durham, or I-85 to U.S. 1.
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2013, 01:12:39 PM
True, the shoulders may not be full-Interstate grade, but NCDOT would have to remedy that before they could sign it as I-495. As for the Nashville bypass, the original part of the bypass dates to 1963. It was originally a Super-2...I'm not sure when it was 4-laned, presumably sometime in the mid to late 70s when much of today's freeway between Eagle Rock and I-95 was built.
I've driven it, and it sure comes pretty close to having the "look and feel" of an Interstate. One could argue that those grassy shoulders, as long as they are not too "soft" and free of tree limbs, are better for the environment, since they will absorb stormwater runoff into the ground. And there are "hollow" pavers that can be installed which provide a "hard" shoulder while still allowing most of the stormwater to be absorbed into the earth (though I suspect the cost of installing them on a segment of highway this long would probably be prohibitive).
Quote from: froggie on February 28, 2013, 01:12:39 PM
Since nothing has come through AASHTO's special committee on route numbering as of yet, I presume NCDOT is planning on submitting this to AASHTO and FHWA in the not-too-distant future.
It should also be noted that, if this were to go through, it would theoretically enable NCDOT to renumber I-540 to I-640 as it would then connect to two Interstate routes. Bob Malme suggests as much on his NC Interstate page that SPUI linked to.
N.C. 540 would become N.C. 640 as well?
I'd rather see a 2di, as short as it is. What about extending such an Interstate designation along US-64 to Williamston or even Columbia with upgrades?
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 28, 2013, 03:38:00 PM
I'd rather see a 2di, as short as it is. What about extending such an Interstate designation along US-64 to Williamston or even Columbia with upgrades?
Upgrading US 64 between Williamston and Plymouth would require an entirely new roadway unless you want to remove numerous homes as existing US 64 in this location has dozens and dozens of driveway accesses. The 4-laning of US 64 took away much property from these homes' front yards and there isn't room to add frontage roads adjacent to the main alignment. Due to swamps/Roanoke River and the railroad, it wouldn't be possible for a lot of this stretch to put parallel roads behind the houses either.
I'm not sure under current guidelines if Williamston qualifies as big enough to be the end point of an interstate.
Greenville on the other hand is at least the equivalent of Goldsboro, so when somebody puts in for US 264 to be an interstate they can do that...
If US 1 south of Raleigh ever became freeway all the way to Rockingham the I-495/US 1 could be a 2di or I-495 could form one great big loop using I-73 to get back to I-95 south of Dillon.
Mapmikey
QuoteI'm not sure under current guidelines if Williamston qualifies as big enough to be the end point of an interstate.
The town itself would not, but since US 17 is both on the NHS and is a STRAHNET route, the northern junction with US 13/US 17 could serve as an Interstate termini point.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on February 28, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
N.C. 540 would become N.C. 640 as well?
The idea would be that Interstate 540 would change number to Interstate 640 once it reconnects with Interstate 40 (or another 2-di Interstate); I doubt they will renumber it if a 3-di Interstate connects since we have Future I-785 overlapping Future I-840 around Greensboro.
Also, I don't think the number will change anytime soon since that section south of US 64/264 will eventually be part of Toll NC 540, thus the interstate will not reconnect.
And for the sake of argument they did change I-540 --> I-640; it's highly unlikely they would do same with NC 540 since it is identified as a Toll Road.
No, NC 540 will remain as it is.. since it's a toll road. Changing it to NC 640 would increase confusion.
I have the feeling that the signage would say "I-640 East/NC 540 West" if you're coming down to Raleigh on I-40, with a bunch of "To" routes such as To US 70, US 64, US 1, I-495, etc.
At least it will free up I-540 for other uses should it happens.
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
At least it will free up I-540 for other uses should it happens.
...which would increase confusion if it's not a continuation of NC 540.
Not that there's a shortage of I-x40 numbers or anything...
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
No, NC 540 will remain as it is.. since it's a toll road. Changing it to NC 640 would increase confusion.
I have the feeling that the signage would say "I-640 East/NC 540 West" if you're coming down to Raleigh on I-40, with a bunch of "To" routes such as To US 70, US 64, US 1, I-495, etc.
At least it will free up I-540 for other uses should it happens.
That eastbound Advance Guide Sign for I-540 (Exit 283) is big enough as it is.
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2013, 12:39:56 AM
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
At least it will free up I-540 for other uses should it happens.
...which would increase confusion if it's not a continuation of NC 540.
Not that there's a shortage of I-x40 numbers or anything...
Who knows.. they might just keep I-540. We can't predict what NCDOT would do.. so I guess it's a waiting game.
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2013, 12:47:52 AM
Quote from: NE2 on March 01, 2013, 12:39:56 AM
Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2013, 12:36:55 AM
At least it will free up I-540 for other uses should it happens.
...which would increase confusion if it's not a continuation of NC 540.
Not that there's a shortage of I-x40 numbers or anything...
Who knows.. they might just keep I-540. We can't predict what NCDOT would do.. so I guess it's a waiting game.
And probably waiting a while at that. The benefit I saw for the change to I-640 was that it helped differentiate the free from the toll portions of the Outer Loop two ways, shield and numerical wise. If directions are to follow x route to 540, one need not have to ask whether they mean I-540 or NC 540. I suspect things will stay as they are though.
In my mind, this should be part of an I-42 (or 46 or 48 or whatever's available in the grid that will pacify the state highway crybabies) between Raleigh and Norfolk. But at any rate, it's a perfectly worthwhile interstate.
I kind of like now NC has been the nation's go-getter when it comes to interstates. I mean I-74 is dumb, and I'm not totally jacked about I-73, but the rest of there interstating has been fine by me.
At the risk of derailing the thread (since it was mentioned), I-540 and NC 540 should both be immediately turned into I-640, like they should've been originally. The 540 thing was dumb; the belt was under construction, for crying out and it'll hook up eventually, so fudge it! And don't get me started on this "no new interstates on tollways" bullshit. What a crock. There is no good reason for that "rule".
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 05, 2013, 08:08:12 PM
In my mind, this should be part of an I-42 (or 46 or 48 or whatever's available in the grid that will pacify the state highway crybabies) between Raleigh and Norfolk. But at any rate, it's a perfectly worthwhile interstate.
I kind of like now NC has been the nation's go-getter when it comes to interstates. I mean I-74 is dumb, and I'm not totally jacked about I-73, but the rest of there interstating has been fine by me.
At the risk of derailing the thread (since it was mentioned), I-540 and NC 540 should both be immediately turned into I-640, like they should've been originally. The 540 thing was dumb; the belt was under construction, for crying out and it'll hook up eventually, so fudge it! And don't get me started on this "no new interstates on tollways" bullshit. What a crock. There is no good reason for that "rule".
Go get 'em. LOL. Jokin aside, I agree.
Raleigh would have to make it confusin as you know what.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 05, 2013, 08:08:12 PM
At the risk of derailing the thread (since it was mentioned), I-540 and NC 540 should both be immediately turned into I-640, like they should've been originally. The 540 thing was dumb; the belt was under construction, for crying out and it'll hook up eventually, so fudge it! And don't get me started on this "no new interstates on tollways" bullshit. What a crock. There is no good reason for that "rule".
THANK YOU!! :)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on March 05, 2013, 08:08:12 PM
In my mind, this should be part of an I-42 (or 46 or 48 or whatever's available in the grid that will pacify the state highway crybabies) between Raleigh and Norfolk. But at any rate, it's a perfectly worthwhile interstate.
I kind of like now NC has been the nation's go-getter when it comes to interstates. I mean I-74 is dumb, and I'm not totally jacked about I-73, but the rest of there interstating has been fine by me.
I feel the same way. While it might be a little more proactive than my tastes, I like the idea of proactive expansion.
64 is only at Interstate standards along the Knightdale Bypass. As froggie and someone else mentioned, the Nashville bypass is the oldest segment and would need noteworth improvements (shoulders, bridges that would need to be widened and maybe some median work, similar to US 220 in Asheboro). For the rest of the highway from Wendell Blvd. (Business US 64) to I-95 the shoulders would be the biggest need of improvement. Maybe some ramp lengthening. Signage improvement is really not that big of a deal.
Interstate designation could also lead to funding for the widening of 64/264 from the end of the Knightdale Bypass to the US 64/264 split in Zebulon.
also thread title should be more NCDOT proposes to add 495 (/nitpick)
Here is an option extnd the freeway all the way to Tidewater/Hampton Roads and make it all I-64. That way NC can have 2 Interstate/US duplexes with the same number and we get a bonus Interstate that loops back on itself. We could even get crazier and route it with 40/85 into Greensboro and put it on US 29 and have it meet back with I-64 in Virginia.
(just so everyone is clear and I dont get hate messages this is sarcasm. It makes as much sense as I-73/74 in the Carolinas in my mind.)
It appears NCDOT sent a letter to the FHWA back in November regarding the designation of US 64 as part of an I-44 interstate from Raleigh to Norfolk, not about a possible I-495 designation, check the letter out here: http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf (http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf)
The interstate request currently is only for the Knightdale Bypass portion, the part up to interstate standards, not the rest of the corridor, but they ask the FHWA to reserve the rest of the High Priority Corridor as a future I-44 (or another AASHTO approved number).
Um. they requested the FHWA to just designate US 64 as I-44 for just 10 miles, then the rest as a Future I-44 corridor? hmm.
So what was this whole post about with I-495? LOL
Any chance I-495 would be designated eastward to Williamston?
With I-495 being designated southwest of I-95, I would expect I-795 to be designated westward to I-495 and Zebulon.
I do not know if consideration will be given for a 3di designation for US-264 from I-795 to Greenville. In the State of New York, several of I-90's spurs come from 3di loops. I-195, I-395, I-595 and I-995 would be available designations.
As for I-540 changing its designation to I-640, I would find it doubtful. I-520 in Augusta, Georgia is now a loop into South Carolina, thus changing the rules completely on 3DIs. I-540, as it has been known that way for years, would keep its designation.
Quote from: Strider on March 07, 2013, 11:49:57 PM
Um. they requested the FHWA to just designate US 64 as I-44 for just 10 miles, then the rest as a Future I-44 corridor? hmm.
Because the rest of the corridor is not to interstate standards.
Heck have I-4(X) continue on the Beltline South for two miles and end at I-40.
Quote from: bugo on February 27, 2013, 09:35:43 PM
Is North Carolina going to make every little stretch of freeway into an interstate? If I were in charge of AASHTO I would ban NC from making any changes for 5 years.
If the road is built to Interstate standards and can be added or is attached to the existing system - why not?
Quote from: jcarte29 on March 08, 2013, 12:27:02 AM
So what was this whole post about with I-495? LOL
A couple of possibilities - they may have already been denied the I-44 request by the FHWA. The letter that Bob refers to is from November. The map that Mike Roberson posted is dated February 20th.
It is also entirely possible that the left hand of NCDOT (making the I-495 proposal) doesn't know what the right hand (The I-44 proposal) is doing.
We will know shortly when the AASHTO decisions from their spring meeting is made.
Technically, they could extend the I-4(xy) designation one exit beyond Wendell Blvd. to exit 430 - Rolesville Road. The interstate standard freeway ends just east of there.
Aren't even-first-digit 3di's supposed to end and begin with an interstate, or is that what SHOULD happen?
Quote from: OracleUsr on March 08, 2013, 12:49:59 PM
Aren't even-first-digit 3di's supposed to end and begin with an interstate, or is that what SHOULD happen?
That's the general requirement for any interstate but exceptions for NHS routes are allowed:
QuoteThe proposed route should connect to the Interstate System at each end, with the exception of Interstate routes that connect with continental routes at an international border, or terminate in a "major highway traffic generator" that is not served by another Interstate route. In the latter case, the terminus of the Interstate route should connect to routes of the National Highway System that will adequately handle the traffic. The proposed route also must be functionally classified as a principal arterial and be a part of the National Highway System system.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm#appa
Even if US 64 east of I-95 were built to standards it would probably fail from this point:
QuoteThe proposed route should directly serve major highway traffic generators. The term "major highway traffic generator" means either an urbanized area with a population over 100,000 or a similar major concentrated land use activity that produces and attracts long-distance Interstate and statewide travel of persons and goods. Typical examples of similar major concentrated land use activities would include a principal industrial complex, government center, military installation, or transportation terminal.
Unless you could swing it that it's part of a future route to Norfolk like Bob said. I assume that I-795 got by this provision thanks to Seymour Johnson AFB.
So I would guess that they are swinging for the fences with the I-44 proposal with the I-495 proposal as a fallback.
If NCDOT have the plans for the interstate standard freeway (or any form of upgrades) to parallel US 17 northeast to Norfolk, then I can see why it can be labeled a future interstate route, but I don't think that is in any of their plans.... But, upgrading the route to I-495 from I-95 to I-440 and have I-795 extend from I-95 northwest to I-495 should be ok at this time.
I think that NCDOT should push for the I-44 (I'd make it I-42 IMO)* designation as the first step in a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate. Maybe if NCDOT lets AASHTO know that and has a plan in place with VaDOT, then they can get the 2di designation.
*I can see I-46 in the greater Norfolk area getting confused with I-64, and US-48 exists in Virginia. That, and I prefer to use all reasonable numbers before duplicating already-used numbers.
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 08, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
I think that NCDOT should push for the I-44 (I'd make it I-42 IMO)* designation as the first step in a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate. Maybe if NCDOT lets AASHTO know that and has a plan in place with VaDOT, then they can get the 2di designation.
*I can see I-46 in the greater Norfolk area getting confused with I-64, and US-48 exists in Virginia. That, and I prefer to use all reasonable numbers before duplicating already-used numbers.
My only foray into this, which is purely fictional, is to just designate any new 2di along this corridor as Interstate 50. That number will never be used anywhere else, so why not just break it in here. I actually had this fictional idea back in 2000 when I lived in eastern NC for a Raleigh to Norfolk freeway, so I figured I'd throw it out there now with this I-4x concept and it gives me a chance to use an old Carter photo manip:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/manips/i-050.jpg)
To address the post from Rover_0, as for the US 64 freeway heading east of Rocky Mount, its been over ten years since I was last on it, but I remember it being lightly traveled (and ultra boring FWIW). Looking at traffic counts, NCDOT recorded 22,000 in western Edgecombe County and 11,000 vpd in eastern Edgecombe County in 2011. The counts drop to 8,700 between Everetts and Williamston, with an increase to just 12,000 on the section with US 13/17. Are these counts even enough to warrant an Interstate highway designation?
I like the I-50 number here. Might as well, since, indeed, it won't be used anywhere else (barring a Schuster-esque move).
QuoteLooking at traffic counts, NCDOT recorded 22,000 in western Edgecombe County and 11,000 vpd in eastern Edgecombe County in 2011. The counts drop to 8,700 between Everetts and Williamston, with an increase to just 12,000 on the section with US 13/17. Are these counts even enough to warrant an Interstate highway designation?
Can't really attach Interstate designation to vehicle counts, but you can attach type of road to them. As a general rule (your "local mileage" may vary), volumes less than 10-12K do not warrant a 4-lane highway, but some states (mostly rural states like Mississippi) use a threshold as low as 5K.
Quote from: Alex on March 08, 2013, 04:33:14 PM
My only foray into this, which is purely fictional, is to just designate any new 2di along this corridor as Interstate 50. That number will never be used anywhere else, so why not just break it in here.
Given the I-41/US 41 garbage in Wisconsin, there's always the chance for I-50/US 50 some decade across Missouri. :bigass:
The AASHTO SCOH US Route Numbering Committee has approved the I-495 designation pending FHWA concurrence. The route will be signed as I-495 only from I-440 east to I-540 first. The remainder of US 64 to I-95 has been approved as 'Future I-495' until the route is brought up to interstate standards.
To see the approved applications for NC and elsewhere, go to: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf)
Quote from: bob7374 on May 09, 2013, 04:16:22 PM
The AASHTO SCOH US Route Numbering Committee has approved the I-495 designation pending FHWA concurrence. The route will be signed as I-495 only from I-440 east to I-540 first. The remainder of US 64 to I-95 has been approved as 'Future I-495' until the route is brought up to interstate standards.
To see the approved applications for NC and elsewhere, go to: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf)
Surprised that they didn't go to at least Business 64 (exit 429) since the road is to standard.
The good news is since I am on the road every day as part of my commute - it'll be interesting to see how long the state takes to put up the Interstate shields.
Also interesting is in NCDOT's letter to the FHWA is they requested that they waive the requirement to re-designate I-540 (since it will now end at I-495).
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 09, 2013, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 09, 2013, 04:16:22 PM
The AASHTO SCOH US Route Numbering Committee has approved the I-495 designation pending FHWA concurrence. The route will be signed as I-495 only from I-440 east to I-540 first. The remainder of US 64 to I-95 has been approved as 'Future I-495' until the route is brought up to interstate standards.
To see the approved applications for NC and elsewhere, go to: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf)
Surprised that they didn't go to at least Business 64 (exit 429) since the road is to standard.
The good news is since I am on the road every day as part of my commute - it'll be interesting to see how long the state takes to put up the Interstate shields.
I still think the I-640 switch is a good idea. :-/ The applications can be reached through a link here: http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx)
QuoteSurprised that they didn't go to at least Business 64 (exit 429) since the road is to standard.
Probably because of FHWA's general requirement that new Interstate segments (Congressional legislation notwithstanding) connect to a "logical termini" at the other end, usually another Interstate, major facility, or NHS highway. Business 64 doesn't count, but the split at 264 would once they get the upgrades out to Zebulon completed.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 09, 2013, 04:38:56 PM
Also interesting is in NCDOT's letter to the FHWA is they requested that they waive the requirement to re-designate I-540 (since it will now end at I-495).
All of I-86 in Connecticut and Massachusetts was redesignated as I-84 in the 1980s. It wouldn't be that hard to change the signs.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 09, 2013, 04:48:34 PM
I still think the I-640 switch is a good idea. :-/
So do I. The Raleigh Outer Loop is the most horribly mis-managed freeway project I've ever seen. Part toll, part free, AND the wrong number.
Quote from: broadhurst04 on May 11, 2013, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 09, 2013, 04:48:34 PM
I still think the I-640 switch is a good idea. :-/
So do I. The Raleigh Outer Loop is the most horribly mis-managed freeway project I've ever seen. Part toll, part free, AND the wrong number.
Amen. I know Charlott-ians have to be laughing while the final segment of I-485 (the only actual loop of its kind in NC) gets built.
While I'm not so concerned about Greensboro, it would make sense for I-840 to be a complete loop and share the southern half with I-85 on the SE side and I-73 on the SW side. Or why not re-designate it as an even x85?? (Such as I-685) It could start at the same spot since that's the I-40/85 split, and here's an idea, let Winston-Salem have 840 for Green 40 once its upgrade is completed.
Charlotte isn't laughing. They've done nothing but complain about how they didn't have a full loop when Raleigh had one and is getting two. The thinking in Charlotte is that the Raleigh Beltline is a loop already. Charlotte has complained about Wilmington and Fayetteville loop projects as well. Especially during the Governor Easley administration.
As for the Raleigh Outer Loop being mismanaged? A lot of it has done with the lack of funding available as a result of the outdated 'equity formula'. The only reason 540 is toll in Southwestern Wake County is because it was the only means to build the highway.
The wrong number was the result of a FHWA Administrator saying that the highway had to be 540 because it didn't connect to another Interstate at the time.
You can argue that the handling of construction of the toll road and its operation since is mismanaged. But to say that it is mismanaged because half is free, half is toll, and it's a 5 instead of a 6 in front of it, is silly.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on May 13, 2013, 09:15:59 AM
Charlotte isn't laughing. They've done nothing but complain about how they didn't have a full loop when Raleigh had one and is getting two. The thinking in Charlotte is that the Raleigh Beltline is a loop already. Charlotte has complained about Wilmington and Fayetteville loop projects as well. Especially during the Governor Easley administration.
As for the Raleigh Outer Loop being mismanaged? A lot of it has done with the lack of funding available as a result of the outdated 'equity formula'. The only reason 540 is toll in Southwestern Wake County is because it was the only means to build the highway.
The wrong number was the result of a FHWA Administrator saying that the highway had to be 540 because it didn't connect to another Interstate at the time.
You can argue that the handling of construction of the toll road and its operation since is mismanaged. But to say that it is mismanaged because half is free, half is toll, and it's a 5 instead of a 6 in front of it, is silly.
That's yet another example of the state's largest city bullying its capital city. In addition, Charlotte is overlooking one fact: It already has a loop highway of its own (I-277), even if it only serves downtown and surrounding areas. So, like Raleigh, it'll have two loop highways when the I-485 Outerbelt is finally done.
As for the complaints about I-540 and how it carries the wrong number, a lot of roadgeeks were convinced that the number is only temporary and will eventually change to I-640 after the entire loop is completed. But I-540 is still there, and most of us will probably fret if it connects back to I-40 south of Raleigh. I-520 is a similar example, but it gets away with reconnecting to its parent in another state.
Charlotte always complain about anything. It's a #1 city in North Carolina for a reason.
Quote from: Henry on May 13, 2013, 11:07:10 AM
That's yet another example of the state's largest city bullying its capital city. In addition, Charlotte is overlooking one fact: It already has a loop highway of its own (I-277), even if it only serves downtown and surrounding areas. So, like Raleigh, it'll have two loop highways when the I-485 Outerbelt is finally done.
There is a big difference between I-277 (4-mi downtown partial loop) and I-440 (16-mi city partial loop), these are not apples to apples.
I've created a new page on my NC Future Interstates site to track the developments regarding I-495. The page can be reached at www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut495.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut495.html)
Looks like we should be seeing the I-495 shields soon:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9132
Meh... fine. Should switch I-540 to I-640 while they at it, but I know they wont.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 12, 2013, 05:58:42 PM
Meh... fine. Should switch I-540 to I-640 while they at it, but I know they wont.
NCDOT actually requested that the FHWA give an exception in keeping the designation as I-540.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 12, 2013, 06:14:50 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 12, 2013, 05:58:42 PM
Meh... fine. Should switch I-540 to I-640 while they at it, but I know they wont.
NCDOT actually requested that the FHWA give an exception in keeping the designation as I-540.
Doesn't NCDOT's actions to try to keep the I-540 designation while asking for the I-495 number seem a little inconsistent? They asked for an even x95 because, though the route acts like a spur, it connects to interstates at both ends, meanwhile, they want I-540 which will also connect interstates at both ends, to keep its number. I know the 540 route number has been around for more than a decade and they say it will cause less problems to keep it the same but then, why not ask for an odd designation for US 64, since it serves the function of an interstate spur, if the concept of having an even number interstate is not really that important. The suggestion on my Future Interstates page back in the early 2000s was to call an I-95 spur route to Raleigh via US 64, I-395.
QuoteThe section between I-440 and I-540 on the east side of Raleigh will have the I-495 designation, while the stretch of U.S. 64 between I-540 and I-95 will be designated Future I-495.
*facepalm*
Either make the whole route an actual interstate or don't bother! This bullshit about "future" interstates is ridiculous.
QuoteEither make the whole route an actual interstate or don't bother! This bullshit about "future" interstates is ridiculous.
A) they can't designate it as a full Interstate until the shoulders get improved.
B) unlike other states, North Carolina has been pretty consistent about following through on its Interstate intentions.
Quote from: Duke87 on December 15, 2013, 10:23:23 PM
*facepalm*
Either make the whole route an actual interstate or don't bother! This bullshit about "future" interstates is ridiculous.
I don't see why not considering PA has plenty of signed Interstate highways that are of lower quality than that stretch of US-64.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on December 16, 2013, 04:29:52 PM
I don't see why not considering PA has plenty of signed Interstate highways that are of lower quality than that stretch of US-64.
Those roads were probably built before standards got tougher, they are grandfathered in now. New interstates on the map must meet higher standards.
This is a letter to the editor that was published in the News and Observer today: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/16/3465591/ken-thorn-spurred-by-interstate.html
And when I clicked the link, there were at least three familiar names in the comments section.
Sorry, but I got a chuckle out of this:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/30/3495234/road-worrier-road-geeks-quibble.html
It is amusing, I suppose, but what an obnoxious and pointless article. It doesnt paint the discussion on this thread in a fair light and then he spends the entire article whining that its a pointless subject that nobody cares about- why even write it? Its basically trolling.
Quote from: corco on December 31, 2013, 03:41:07 PM
It is amusing, I suppose, but what an obnoxious and pointless article. It doesnt paint the discussion on this thread in a fair light and then he spends the entire article whining that its a pointless subject that nobody cares about- why even write it? Its basically trolling.
Gotta fill column inches. Anyways for those that may be interested, I-495 shields are now showing up on google maps along the designated section of the Knightdale bypass.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2014, 08:23:35 PM
Anyways for those that may be interested, I-495 shields are now showing up on google maps along the designated section of the Knightdale bypass.
Somehow, I-495 appearing on Google Maps doesn't impress me very much. The same map does not have I-74 along US 311 in Forsyth County, not only does it show US 117 still using the I-795/US 264 freeway, but has both US 117 and US 117 Alt paralleling I-795, plus they list I-74 on the Rockingham Bypass, US 220 still on the Ellerbe Bypass, plus other long-standing mistakes.
I still think that I-495 should be a 2di like I-44 (E), I-46, or even I-50. I mean, where else would I-50 be used?
</tangent>
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 25, 2014, 01:47:41 AM
I still think that I-495 should be a 2di like I-44 (E), I-46, or even I-50. I mean, where else would I-50 be used?
</tangent>
I-50 would
have been be a great number for proposed I-66 across Kentucky.
I concur. They won't connect with the Eastern I-66 and we have all of those unused even 2di numbers.
Does anybody know if I-495 shields have gone up yet? I noticed somebody added some "I-495" ref tags on OSM and was wondering if it was truly posted yet. If not, I want to fix the ref tags in that area later today when I have the time.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 05, 2014, 01:54:27 AM
Does anybody know if I-495 shields have gone up yet? I noticed somebody added some "I-495" ref tags on OSM and was wondering if it was truly posted yet. If not, I want to fix the ref tags in that area later today when I have the time.
They weren't, as of late January on eastbound US 64 between US 264 and I-95.
They weren't as of mid-February, either...
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 05, 2014, 01:54:27 AM
Does anybody know if I-495 shields have gone up yet? I noticed somebody added some "I-495" ref tags on OSM and was wondering if it was truly posted yet. If not, I want to fix the ref tags in that area later today when I have the time.
No they aren't, I and a few others drive the road every day.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on March 05, 2014, 08:20:31 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on March 05, 2014, 01:54:27 AM
Does anybody know if I-495 shields have gone up yet? I noticed somebody added some "I-495" ref tags on OSM and was wondering if it was truly posted yet. If not, I want to fix the ref tags in that area later today when I have the time.
No they aren't, I and a few others drive the road every day.
Alright, I'll correct OSM then.
Future I-495 signs are now showing up. (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10101835994005209&set=gm.637737429649264&type=1&relevant_count=1)
Future I-495 sign installation continued today...with signs eastbound being installed to just beyond the Nash/Franklin line. Westbound installation started and has only reached the NC 39 exit at this time. Figure the rest of the installation will occur tomorrow. I didn't notice any today on 64 east of Spring Hope - but I drive this road every day and will know for certain tomorrow.
Here's a closer view of the Future 495 Guide Sign. THis is eastbound on 64 between Wendell Falls Parkway and 64 Business/Wendell Blvd.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/13975874874_4e65d4a726.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ni11FU)Future Interstate 495 (https://flic.kr/p/ni11FU) by Adam's Journey (https://www.flickr.com/people/15530177@N05/), on Flickr
Quote from: CanesFan27 on April 22, 2014, 08:22:57 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/13975874874_4e65d4a726.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ni11FU)Future Interstate 495 (https://flic.kr/p/ni11FU) by Adam's Journey (https://www.flickr.com/people/15530177@N05/), on Flickr
Interesting that they added those signs with big wooden posts. Well, the ones between I-440 and I-540 should be regular interstate shields, when installed.
Word is that one of the eastbound installments between 440 and 540 is Future, not regular.
That information is now incorrect. The person that spotted and took the first photo was mistaken in its location. The first photo on southeast roads is located on 64 east between 540 and Smithfield road which is currently a future designation
NCDOT's official press release regarding the placement of I-495 and Future 495 signs along US 64:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9767 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9767)
Includes another Future 495 sign photo. Press release also says new BGS's with I-495 are currently being manufactured and will be placed sometime during the summer between I-440 and I-540.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 25, 2014, 09:35:34 PM
NCDOT's official press release regarding the placement of I-495 and Future 495 signs along US 64:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9767 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9767)
Includes another Future 495 sign photo. Press release also says new BGS's with I-495 are currently being manufactured and will be placed sometime during the summer between I-440 and I-540.
A Spectacular week for NC current and future interstates...
There now is a pair of full Interstate shields (one each way) on US 64/264 near the Hodge Road interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froadgeek.filpus.org%2FPictures%2FIMG_3296.jpg&hash=bcfe366fb85de3f1543a61075519e8ca15aa7e7d)
===
Quote from: dfilpus on April 26, 2014, 11:26:22 AM
There now is a pair of full Interstate shields (one each way) on US 64/264 near the Hodge Road interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froadgeek.filpus.org%2FPictures%2FIMG_3296.jpg&hash=bcfe366fb85de3f1543a61075519e8ca15aa7e7d)
===
North? Wouldn't East make more sense. Since when is I-95 north of Raleigh?
I pity any future direction givers in the Triangle area. Let's see, to get to Knightdale from Sanford take US 1 to I-40 East then go east on I-440 West until you turn east on I-495 North...
Quote from: dfilpus on April 26, 2014, 11:26:22 AM
There now is a pair of full Interstate shields (one each way) on US 64/264 near the Hodge Road interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froadgeek.filpus.org%2FPictures%2FIMG_3296.jpg&hash=bcfe366fb85de3f1543a61075519e8ca15aa7e7d)
===
And now added to OSM (https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3687336). ;)
Quote from: bob7374 on April 26, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
North? Wouldn't East make more sense. Since when is I-95 north of Raleigh?
I pity any future direction givers in the Triangle area. Let's see, to get to Knightdale from Sanford take US 1 to I-40 East then go east on I-440 West until you turn east on I-495 North...
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
I doubt there will be confusion, there is a reason why US 64/US 264 still overlap, its well known and likely will still be used as directions. The interstate designation will not mean much till it connects fully with I-95.
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:49:31 PM
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Okay, it appears visuals are in order.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi170.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu266%2Fwashuotaku%2FI-495_zps4315e6c4.jpg&hash=2d8c2c85083035fb6811a2fde20cebfa39006f72) (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/washuotaku/media/I-495_zps4315e6c4.jpg.html)
Traveling similar to that of I-85 in the state, I-495's route goes in a northeasterly direction to I-95 near Rocky Mount. Please note that it is also an odd-number interstate, which lends again to it being north-south.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:49:31 PM
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Okay, it appears visuals are in order.
Please note that it is also an odd-number interstate, which lends again to it being north-south.
Pretty sure this is irrelevant...
I-464 and I-664 are posted N-S
I-176 and I-476 are posted N-S
I-270 MD is posted N-S
I-195 NJ is posted E-W
I-115 is posted E-W
I-155 AR/TN is posted E-W
I-205 CA is posted E-W
I-190 SD is posted N-S
I-180 WY is posted N-S
I'm certain there are numerous other examples...
3dis are posted in accordance with how they actually run...
Mapmikey
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 27, 2014, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:49:31 PM
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Okay, it appears visuals are in order.
Please note that it is also an odd-number interstate, which lends again to it being north-south.
Pretty sure this is irrelevant...
I-464 and I-664 are posted N-S
I-176 and I-476 are posted N-S
I-270 MD is posted N-S
I-195 NJ is posted E-W
I-115 is posted E-W
I-155 AR/TN is posted E-W
I-205 CA is posted E-W
I-190 SD is posted N-S
I-180 WY is posted N-S
I'm certain there are numerous other examples...
3dis are posted in accordance with how they actually run...
Mapmikey
Add to that list:
I-190 NY is posted N-S
I-495 itself, in its other iterations, has an east-west routing (Long Island), a north-south routing (Wilmington, DE) and an "all-direction" routing (Capital Beltway).
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 27, 2014, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 27, 2014, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:49:31 PM
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Okay, it appears visuals are in order.
Please note that it is also an odd-number interstate, which lends again to it being north-south.
Pretty sure this is irrelevant...
I-464 and I-664 are posted N-S
I-176 and I-476 are posted N-S
I-270 MD is posted N-S
I-195 NJ is posted E-W
I-115 is posted E-W
I-155 AR/TN is posted E-W
I-205 CA is posted E-W
I-190 SD is posted N-S
I-180 WY is posted N-S
I'm certain there are numerous other examples...
3dis are posted in accordance with how they actually run...
Mapmikey
Add to that list:
I-190 NY is posted N-S
Okay, so I have been proven wrong on multiple accounts, but at least NCDOT is trying to keep the idea alive. A few years back they updated the signage around Charlotte's I-485 to Inner-Outer/North-South signage; before that it had North-South-East-West depending where you were along it. Generally, they have not strayed from the odd/even formula for interstates.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on April 27, 2014, 08:47:23 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on April 27, 2014, 08:38:42 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 08:25:45 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 27, 2014, 04:49:31 PM
I guess I-495 is north-south because it runs 90 degrees to I-40 east of Raleigh. That's really dumb.
Okay, it appears visuals are in order.
Please note that it is also an odd-number interstate, which lends again to it being north-south.
Pretty sure this is irrelevant...
I-464 and I-664 are posted N-S
I-176 and I-476 are posted N-S
I-270 MD is posted N-S
I-195 NJ is posted E-W
I-115 is posted E-W
I-155 AR/TN is posted E-W
I-205 CA is posted E-W
I-190 SD is posted N-S
I-180 WY is posted N-S
I'm certain there are numerous other examples...
3dis are posted in accordance with how they actually run...
Mapmikey
Add to that list:
I-190 NY is posted N-S
Isn't I-684 in New York/Connecticut also N/S?
All traffic to southbound I-95 (in their right mind) will use I-40 east. Signing I-495 N-S makes the shortcut utility of I-495 obvious to drivers who want I-95 north. Besides, U.S. 64/264 are already east-west.
^And the fact that I-495 overlays directly on top of US 64 is why folks (including some in Raleigh) are questioning why it's signed north-south.
'Course, we've already seen how GPS overuse is causing drivers to ignore signs anyway.
Quote from: Molandfreak on April 28, 2014, 12:21:10 AM
All traffic to southbound I-95 (in their right mind) will use I-40 east. Signing I-495 N-S makes the shortcut utility of I-495 obvious to drivers who want I-95 north. Besides, U.S. 64/264 are already east-west.
This could be a legitimate rationale, but they should extend I-495 over I-40 back to I-95 to really make that idea make total sense.
Mapmikey
Quote from: bob7374 on April 26, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on April 26, 2014, 11:26:22 AM
There now is a pair of full Interstate shields (one each way) on US 64/264 near the Hodge Road interchange.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Froadgeek.filpus.org%2FPictures%2FIMG_3296.jpg&hash=bcfe366fb85de3f1543a61075519e8ca15aa7e7d)
===
North? Wouldn't East make more sense. Since when is I-95 north of Raleigh?
I pity any future direction givers in the Triangle area. Let's see, to get to Knightdale from Sanford take US 1 to I-40 East then go east on I-440 West until you turn east on I-495 North...
I also expected I-495 East to show up, but I guess I-495 North makes more sense, as it heads northeast to meet I-95 at Rocky Mount.
Since NCDOT is adding I-495 to US 64, the BGS's on I-95 should have Raleigh as the control city and Nashville on an auxilliary sign.
The north/south design on I-495 makes sense to me. Rocky Mount is northeast of Raleigh. I don't see any issues with it.
Most people who want to get to I-95 South from Raleigh continues on I-40 east. For these who want to get to I-95 North from Raleigh tend to use US 64 East (not US 264), which makes the I-495 a north-south routing.
Seattle is north of Boston. I-90 should be signed north-south.
Seriously, Rocky Mount is about that far north of Raleigh compared to how far east it is.
Quote from: amroad17 on April 28, 2014, 04:27:56 PM
Since NCDOT is adding I-495 to US 64, the BGS's on I-95 should have Raleigh as the control city and Nashville on an auxilliary sign.
I highly doubt they will change the signs along I-95 anytime soon, at least until I-495 is completed.
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2014, 06:00:48 PM
Seattle is north of Boston. I-90 should be signed north-south.
Seriously, Rocky Mount is about that far north of Raleigh compared to how far east it is.
You must be in the same group that want I-26 signed north-south and I-85 signed east-west. :poke:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 28, 2014, 09:03:24 PM
Quote from: Alps on April 28, 2014, 06:00:48 PM
Seattle is north of Boston. I-90 should be signed north-south.
Seriously, Rocky Mount is about that far north of Raleigh compared to how far east it is.
You must be in the same group that want I-26 signed north-south and I-85 signed east-west. :poke:
Lol yeah but can't say the same about I-69 which turns from north-south to west-east near Lansing, MI.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7295/14105251973_976341495b_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nur6Zx) (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/14062037746_8415e62fdb_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nqBBUE)
Look at these signs, north and south I-495, near Raleigh.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7406/13898575890_ae4c579355_n.jpg) (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/13898517327_91b90a5158_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbaQoN)
Also took a picture of a typical "Future I-495" along the route east of I-540 and the BIG end sign for US 264, which if you look on the asphalt, will soon may be replaced with a combo end I-495/US 264 sign. :spin: I have more pictures on my flickr page (https://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/).
Count me in Washu's camp here.
I-277 in Akron used to be signed north-south on the basis that I-77 is a north-south route. Then at some point (late 90s, I think?), ODOT realized that was pretty ridiculous and re-signed it west-east, matching its geographic orientation and the direction of US 224 (which is the route number the locals use regardless).
But hey, this is NC we're talking about. When I moved to Chapel Hill, I'm pretty sure I punched a kitten* when I figured out that the "Inner Beltway" and "Outer Beltway" around Raleigh were opposite sides of the same road.
*Not really. My roadgeekery is animal-safe, I promise. :colorful:
I wonder if the locals will still be referring to this road primarily as "64" (or however they refer to it now) years or decades from now like Boston's I-95 is seemingly forever "128" and St. Louis' I-64 is "Highway 40".
As for the directional signage, I think it makes a lot more sense as E/W. However, I can see some value in I-495 being N/S if US 64 will remain designated on the same highway as E/W, given that it's at least a little bit of a diagonal route.
Quote from: exit10 on May 01, 2014, 11:56:16 PM
But hey, this is NC we're talking about. When I moved to Chapel Hill, I'm pretty sure I punched a kitten* when I figured out that the "Inner Beltway" and "Outer Beltway" around Raleigh were opposite sides of the same road.
*Not really. My roadgeekery is animal-safe, I promise. :colorful:
DC and Norfolk sign their beltways Inner/Outer, and I've seen it other places (I think I-485 Charlotte). Don't throw a squirrel.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8180/7887571192_585ef97277_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZS7L)2012 Carolinas Trip Day 2 - 301 (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZS7L) by hbelkins (https://www.flickr.com/people/52983012@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8458/7887572650_f7d71ee7a8_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZSxU)2012 Carolinas Trip Day 2 - 305 (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZSxU) by hbelkins (https://www.flickr.com/people/52983012@N08/), on Flickr
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8303/7887582146_cc814b4ae3_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZVnC)2012 Carolinas Trip Day 2 - 333 (https://flic.kr/p/d1ZVnC) by hbelkins (https://www.flickr.com/people/52983012@N08/), on Flickr
Yea, both I-277 and I-485 use inner/outer in addition to north/south on their signs, in Charlotte. When I-485 was first established, they also signed east-west on the first section because it was going east-west; but they were all replaced (except for the overhead sign on US 521, which should be replaced soon) to the current format 2-3 years ago.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2592/4022469167_de56cb09d5_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/78scWF)
Oh no, it's spreading! Run!
When I lived in NC (2001-2004), Charlotte was not yet afflicted with this evil. Neither was SE Virginia when I was last there.
I recommend a quarantine.
Wouldn't CLOCK and COUNTER be more useful than INNER and OUTER?
Not necessarily. INNER and OUTER work quite well in DC.
Quote from: english si on May 07, 2014, 05:49:38 AM
Wouldn't CLOCK and COUNTER be more useful than INNER and OUTER?
If Charlotte drivers saw clock or counter clock, they probably expect to be hit by clocks. :-D
Quote from: froggie on May 07, 2014, 07:55:40 AM
Not necessarily. INNER and OUTER work quite well in DC.
It might bear nothing that the Capital Beltway signs aren't in quite the same fashion as the ones in North Carolina (and formerly on the Beltline near Raleigh). North Carolina uses INNER and OUTER on the BGSs either in addition to or in lieu of actual directions. The signs on the Beltline omitted NORTH, SOUTH, etc. in favor of INNER and OUTER, for example, unlike the examples shown for the Charlotte area. (Triangle residents also refer to the "Inner Beltline" and the "Outer Beltline" to refer to the two carriageways rather than to two different roads as people would do here. The "Outer Beltway" refers to a never-constructed highway.)
The DC area signs, in contrast, use a Capital Beltway logo with "INNER LOOP" or "OUTER LOOP" underneath, but insofar as I've seen the BGSs always use solely the actual direction. I don't believe I've ever seen a BGS using "INNER LOOP" or "OUTER LOOP" anywhere (whether in addition to or in lieu of). There might be a post-mounted shield somewhere with the "LOOP" designation below a shield, but off the top of my head I can't ever recall seeing one. As far as I can visualize, they all have the logo sign present, and the signs' color scheme pretty clearly ties the "LOOP" designation to the "Capital Beltway" aspect rather than to I-95 or I-495.
I'm pretty sure the DC area usage came from traffic reporters adopting those expressions to distinguish the two directions of traffic.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftraipsathon.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FCapital_Beltway.gif&hash=04773142e565071c52b9cc3c87bf447071919da9) (//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/VA/VA19794951i1.jpg)
Heh....that second image was taken barely nine years ago, but it looks like a totally different place compared to today!
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2014, 05:10:32 PM
It might bear nothing that the Capital Beltway signs aren't in quite the same fashion as the ones in North Carolina (and formerly on the Beltline near Raleigh). North Carolina uses INNER and OUTER on the BGSs either in addition to or in lieu of actual directions. The signs on the Beltline omitted NORTH, SOUTH, etc. in favor of INNER and OUTER, for example, unlike the examples shown for the Charlotte area. (Triangle residents also refer to the "Inner Beltline" and the "Outer Beltline" to refer to the two carriageways rather than to two different roads as people would do here. The "Outer Beltway" refers to a never-constructed highway.)
Regarding the Triangle area, nowadays it does; but before I-540 started taking shape around Raleigh, I-440 was looped completly around Raleigh and was using Inner/Outer in similiar setup as the signage in Charlotte now. In 2002, they realize people in Raleigh couldn't get it and removed I-440 from I-40 and switched the signage to east-west.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Beltline1.JPG/800px-Beltline1.JPG)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 07, 2014, 11:39:32 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 07, 2014, 05:10:32 PM
It might bear nothing that the Capital Beltway signs aren't in quite the same fashion as the ones in North Carolina (and formerly on the Beltline near Raleigh). North Carolina uses INNER and OUTER on the BGSs either in addition to or in lieu of actual directions. The signs on the Beltline omitted NORTH, SOUTH, etc. in favor of INNER and OUTER, for example, unlike the examples shown for the Charlotte area. (Triangle residents also refer to the "Inner Beltline" and the "Outer Beltline" to refer to the two carriageways rather than to two different roads as people would do here. The "Outer Beltway" refers to a never-constructed highway.)
Regarding the Triangle area, nowadays it does; but before I-540 started taking shape around Raleigh, I-440 was looped completly around Raleigh and was using Inner/Outer in similiar setup as the signage in Charlotte now. In 2002, they realize people in Raleigh couldn't get it and removed I-440 from I-40 and switched the signage to east-west.
.....
I thought that was more or less what I said. Notice I used past tense when referring to the Beltline's INNER/OUTER signage.
Quote from: 1995hoo on May 08, 2014, 07:45:58 AM
I thought that was more or less what I said. Notice I used past tense when referring to the Beltline's INNER/OUTER signage.
No worries, I can't read. :-o
It is probably marked North so folks don't go "east" to hit I-95 South. It runs NE so North makes more sense as someone heading out of Raleigh to I-95 will be heading somewhere north.
Whenever you have a diagonal route it can go either way. Example would be if I-24 was an odd numbered interstate, it would be signed North and South and be the same.
You will run into these issues with that always with diagonal routes, so we here are worried about nothing. Whether its N-S or E-W does not change the function of the route. Heck look at US 52 in SC, it now is signed E-W to follow FHWA guidelines, yet it still runs N-S in the Palmetto State.
Quoteit now is signed E-W to follow FHWA guidelines
FHWA guidelines for route direction only really apply to Interstate highways. Directional signage for state and US routes is strictly a state matter.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:19:30 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Where is I-444 signed?
iPhone
I-444 isn't signed, but it is a "secret" design for US 75 in Tulsa between the I-244 exits.
Quote from: Strider on July 02, 2014, 09:44:31 PM
I-444 isn't signed, but it is a "secret" design for US 75 in Tulsa between the I-244 exits.
Lol I know I've been on it several times. I'm just giving my fellow okie/arky hell.
iPhone
Quote from: froggie on July 01, 2014, 10:44:56 AM
Quoteit now is signed E-W to follow FHWA guidelines
FHWA guidelines for route direction only really apply to Interstate highways. Directional signage for state and US routes is strictly a state matter.
Tell that one to FDOT District 4 as they assign US 98 as E-W despite all other districts have US 98 east of Perry as N-S. I wrote them about it and told them its confusing and being it only runs true E-W for a few miles from Belle Glade to Palm Beach it should be signed N-S. However, FDOT told me that odd numbers are to be north to south and even numbers east and west and the engineer gave me other examples of routes signed different from their actual direction.
In fact US 92 runs north-south more miles than US 98 does run east-west in Palm Beach County. Plus FDOT District 1 signs US 98 as N-S west of Okeechobee where it does run E-W, but with District 4 signing their district maintenance of US 98 has the N-S portion (with US 441) south of Okeechobee signed E-W. I pointed these facts out, but they kept insisting that cardinal direction is what to be signed and not local or regional.
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:19:30 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Just because there are exceptions to the rule, it doesn't make it right. :pan:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 02, 2014, 11:13:48 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:19:30 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Just because there are exceptions to the rule, it doesn't make it right. :pan:
IT'S NOT A RULE! Are you saying I-530 should be signed E-W? There is no rule for 3 digit interstates that says they must be signed according to the direction of their "parent" highway. Look it up.
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 11:22:11 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 02, 2014, 11:13:48 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:19:30 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Just because there are exceptions to the rule, it doesn't make it right. :pan:
IT'S NOT A RULE! Are you saying I-530 should be signed E-W? There is no rule for 3 digit interstates that says they must be signed according to the direction of their "parent" highway. Look it up.
I second this. The only 3di rules I'm aware of are if the first number is odd it's a spur and if it's even it's a loop/belt. And there are exceptions to that as well so it may not be an actual "rule". The numerical value if a 3di in no way reflects it's cardinal direction
iPhone
Problem solved:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2F495_zps07951ed1.jpg&hash=d642a0f1d957ad093dde3b33d193d730969112ed)
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on July 03, 2014, 12:15:44 AM
Problem solved:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi100.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fm23%2Fliam750%2F495_zps07951ed1.jpg&hash=d642a0f1d957ad093dde3b33d193d730969112ed)
At one time, that would have worked in Ohio.
I am old enough to remember the N-EAST, S-EAST, N-WEST, S-WEST directional banners that were used in Ohio.
Quote from: Arkansastravelguy on July 02, 2014, 10:28:07 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 02, 2014, 09:44:31 PM
I-444 isn't signed, but it is a "secret" design for US 75 in Tulsa between the I-244 exits.
Lol I know I've been on it several times. I'm just giving my fellow okie/arky hell.
iPhone
haha good one though.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 01, 2014, 09:20:01 PM
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7295/14105251973_976341495b_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nur6Zx) (https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/14062037746_8415e62fdb_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nqBBUE)
Look at these signs, north and south I-495, near Raleigh.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7406/13898575890_ae4c579355_n.jpg) (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2897/13898517327_91b90a5158_n.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/nbaQoN)
Also took a picture of a typical "Future I-495" along the route east of I-540 and the BIG end sign for US 264, which if you look on the asphalt, will soon may be replaced with a combo end I-495/US 264 sign. :spin: I have more pictures on my flickr page (https://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/).
I agree that I-495 should be signed East-West rather than N-S. I also agree that there should be guide signs along the major approaches from Raleight to I-495 east that recommend that traffic heading to I-95 north should use I-495 and that traffic heading to I-495 south should use I-40.
Quote from: mrsman on July 03, 2014, 05:02:18 PM
I agree that I-495 should be signed East-West rather than N-S. I also agree that there should be guide signs along the major approaches from Raleight to I-495 east that recommend that traffic heading to I-95 north should use I-495 and that traffic heading to I-495 south should use I-40.
As someone who's never been to the area, I do wonder: for points north of Raleigh (namely Richmond), is 495 to 95 that much faster of a route than US 1 to I-85?
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2014, 05:26:09 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 03, 2014, 05:02:18 PM
I agree that I-495 should be signed East-West rather than N-S. I also agree that there should be guide signs along the major approaches from Raleight to I-495 east that recommend that traffic heading to I-95 north should use I-495 and that traffic heading to I-495 south should use I-40.
As someone who's never been to the area, I do wonder: for points north of Raleigh (namely Richmond), is 495 to 95 that much faster of a route than US 1 to I-85?
Not really. I worked near the RDU Airport last summer and it was quicker to take NC 50 and US 15 or US 1 to I-85. It was not much of a debate in my mind because I barely ever used I-495 to I-95.
It depends on where you live. If you live in Eastern Wake County or Northeast Raleigh or even ITB - yes 495 95 is better. North Raleigh, Durham Cary Etc then 50/85 or 1/85 is better.
At least they didn't get I-44. There should only be one I-44. Besides, the direction US 64 in NC runs doesn't line up with the existing I-44. Every even number between I-40 and I-64 is available, and NCDOT picks the one that isn't available? Nonsense. It shouldn't be a 2 digit route, and if it must be then I-42 or I-46 would be a better number.
Quote from: bugo on July 04, 2014, 01:16:34 AM
At least they didn't get I-44. There should only be one I-44. Besides, the direction US 64 in NC runs doesn't line up with the existing I-44. Every even number between I-40 and I-64 is available, and NCDOT picks the one that isn't available? Nonsense. It shouldn't be a 2 digit route, and if it must be then I-42 or I-46 would be a better number.
I agree with I-46. But there probably will be one soon with the Texas/Illinois/North Carolina war for the most interstate highways
iPhone
What gets me is that NC does not build its freeways up to standards at first. US 64, if it was built right at first, would have no problem transitioning. Remember most of US 64 was built post interstate. That is why Nashville is used as WB control city on I-95 instead of Raliegh unlike US 264 to the south at Wilson which does use Raliegh as that one opened back in 05. US 64 defaulted on to surface roads a few miles west of I-95 when it opened in the early 80's there.
NC is crazy with building some many fully controlled access facilities. I see why TN has such a better tax structure then NC.
Jeremy,
NCDOT didn't choose I-44. It was done by the local planning organization. NCDOT never asked for I-44.
JP natsiatka,
NC along with many other states didn't build to interstate standards. Hell, SC 22 is not. NC has built nearly all freeways the past 15-20 years to interstate standards and that includes the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses for US 70. Among others.
Hindsight - in saying if NC in the 1970s should have built a road to become an interstate 40 years later - is 20/20.
Quote from: roadman65Quote from: froggieFHWA guidelines for route direction only really apply to Interstate highways. Directional signage for state and US routes is strictly a state matter.
Tell that one to FDOT District 4 as they assign US 98 as E-W despite all other districts have US 98 east of Perry as N-S.
Quote from: CanesFan27NC has built nearly all freeways the past 15-20 years to interstate standards and that includes the Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses for US 70. Among others.
...though there are plenty of exceptions. Fayetteville bypass, US 64 east of Plymouth, and US 17 Elizabeth City bypass to name a few. All three have been built in the last 12 years and all three lack Interstate-standard shoulders. The Fayetteville bypass, in particular, is why that route is going to be signed as NC 295 instead of I-295.
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 28, 2013, 03:51:10 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 28, 2013, 03:38:00 PM
I'd rather see a 2di, as short as it is. What about extending such an Interstate designation along US-64 to Williamston or even Columbia with upgrades?
Upgrading US 64 between Williamston and Plymouth would require an entirely new roadway unless you want to remove numerous homes as existing US 64 in this location has dozens and dozens of driveway accesses. The 4-laning of US 64 took away much property from these homes' front yards and there isn't room to add frontage roads adjacent to the main alignment. Due to swamps/Roanoke River and the railroad, it wouldn't be possible for a lot of this stretch to put parallel roads behind the houses either.
I'm not sure under current guidelines if Williamston qualifies as big enough to be the end point of an interstate.
Greenville on the other hand is at least the equivalent of Goldsboro, so when somebody puts in for US 264 to be an interstate they can do that...
If US 1 south of Raleigh ever became freeway all the way to Rockingham the I-495/US 1 could be a 2di or I-495 could form one great big loop using I-73 to get back to I-95 south of Dillon.
Mapmikey
What NCDOT wants to do is to connect to the Norfolk area along US 17. Makes sense, I just would like to see another designation that I-44 since it is already used from St Louis into Texas.
QuoteWhat local business interests want to do is to connect to the Norfolk area along US 17.
FTFY.
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
QuoteWhat local business interests want to do is to connect to the Norfolk area along US 17.
FTFY.
Yes, that is a more accurate statement .....
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 14, 2014, 07:30:24 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 14, 2014, 09:14:13 AM
QuoteWhat local business interests want to do is to connect to the Norfolk area along US 17.
FTFY.
Yes, that is a more accurate statement .....
Still, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
QuoteStill, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
There's really no need for one. US 64 (Future I-495...the topic of this thread) and I-95 bring a freeway up to Emporia. And aside from minor improvements, an interchange here or there, and addressing west Suffolk, US 58 is more than adequate to cover the rest of the distance. Such a route is also over 20 miles shorter than taking 64 to 17. The local businesses east of Rocky Mount know this, which is why they're chomping at the bit to try and bring a superhighway to the corridor, even though every trucker worth his load knows US 58 to I-95 is both shorter and faster.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 15, 2014, 07:21:31 PM
Still, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
Why? There's a perfectly good four-lane corridor available. Not everything has to be an interstate.
Quote from: froggie on August 15, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
QuoteStill, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
There's really no need for one. US 64 (Future I-495...the topic of this thread) and I-95 bring a freeway up to Emporia. And aside from minor improvements, an interchange here or there, and addressing west Suffolk, US 58 is more than adequate to cover the rest of the distance. Such a route is also over 20 miles shorter than taking 64 to 17. The local businesses east of Rocky Mount know this, which is why they're chomping at the bit to try and bring a superhighway to the corridor, even though every trucker worth his load knows US 58 to I-95 is both shorter and faster.
Alright, maybe it isn't needed on this corridor, but I think VDOT should consider upgrading U.S. 58 to Interstate standards east of South Hill, to fill a considerable gap that the Interstate system has. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9437.0) I would imagine the traffic count is high enough; probably much higher than U.S. 64 is west of I-95...
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Not everything has to be an interstate.
We all know that, dude. I'm just saying two adjacent metros of over a million people should have a direct Interstate connection... Disagree? fine. I'm not suggesting anything unreasonable.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 15, 2014, 07:21:31 PM
Still, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
Why? There's a perfectly good four-lane corridor available. Not everything has to be an interstate.
You should tell this to the NCDOT. They love wasting money proving you wrong.
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 11:22:11 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 02, 2014, 11:13:48 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 02, 2014, 12:19:30 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on April 27, 2014, 02:54:38 PM
It's north-south because it's an odd-digit interstate highway. Also, if one looks on a map, it does go north-south similar to I-85 in the state. Same reason I-26 is east-west, because it's even-digit. :pan:
Wrong. 3 digit interstates aren't required to be signed in the same direction of their parents. There are plenty of examples of 3 digit interstates that are signed in a different direction as their parents (I-180, I-530, I-444, etc).
Just because there are exceptions to the rule, it doesn't make it right. :pan:
IT'S NOT A RULE! Are you saying I-530 should be signed E-W? There is no rule for 3 digit interstates that says they must be signed according to the direction of their "parent" highway. Look it up.
You are correct. I-110 is a good example. Every I-110 is signed as a North-South freeway. Pensacola, Biloxi, Baton Rouge, El Paso, and Los Angeles - all 5 North-South!
It sounds like two different concepts at play - upgrading US 64 and upgrading US 17, which just happen to add up to a route to Norfolk. I say, route I-40 east along US 64, the rest of the route can be a southern I-91 or what have you, and then US 17 can be a southern I-93 or I-97 (or, again, what have you).
If this HAD to be done, I would just upgrade US 64 and 17. If anything, it might have a positive effect on the northeastern NC areas that it passes through.
Does it need an interstate designation though? You could probably sign the entirety of the US 64/17 route from Raleigh to Virginia Beach as an extension of I-64 and just sign it as "North/South" after Virginia Beach. It's too long to be a 3di but I don't want to burn a 2di on that route. I'd be happy with just upgrading it and not slapping an interstate shield on it.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 15, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
If this HAD to be done, I would just upgrade US 64 and 17. If anything, it might have a positive effect on the northeastern NC areas that it passes through.
Does it need an interstate designation though? You could probably sign the entirety of the US 64/17 route from Raleigh to Virginia Beach as an extension of I-64 and just sign it as "North/South" after Virginia Beach. It's too long to be a 3di but I don't want to burn a 2di on that route. I'd be happy with just upgrading it and not slapping an interstate shield on it.
I see nothing wrong with I staying US 17 and US 64 as freeways .....
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on August 16, 2014, 03:48:31 AM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on August 15, 2014, 11:50:12 PM
If this HAD to be done, I would just upgrade US 64 and 17. If anything, it might have a positive effect on the northeastern NC areas that it passes through.
Does it need an interstate designation though? You could probably sign the entirety of the US 64/17 route from Raleigh to Virginia Beach as an extension of I-64 and just sign it as "North/South" after Virginia Beach. It's too long to be a 3di but I don't want to burn a 2di on that route. I'd be happy with just upgrading it and not slapping an interstate shield on it.
I see nothing wrong with I staying US 17 and US 64 as freeways .....
The plan, and NCDOT has not been hiding this, is to make the US 64/US 17 corridor an interstate route between Raleigh and Norfolk. I-495 was the first step in that process and they have been widening and upgrading both US 64 and US 17 for years now. It just takes a long as time because the state is fronting the money since the Feds haven't recognized this route as a future Interstate corridor until I-495.
I believe this has already been touched on before.
After the I-74 fiasco, I can't say I trust the NCDOT with anything interstate related.
Quote from: molandfreakAlright, maybe it isn't needed on this corridor, but I think VDOT should consider upgrading U.S. 58 to Interstate standards east of South Hill, to fill a considerable gap that the Interstate system has. I would imagine the traffic count is high enough; probably much higher than U.S. 64 is west of I-95...
Quote from: The Nature BoyIf this HAD to be done, I would just upgrade US 64 and 17.
A freeway-grade US 58 would be a nice-to-have and I'd agree if VDOT were to push an Interstate designation for it. But as I noted earlier, except for a few upgrades here and there, US 58 functions just fine as it exists. Upgrading I-64 and addressing Hampton Roads water crossings should be MUCH higher priorities for VDOT than an Interstate-grade US 58.
Another thing noted earlier is that it's over 20 miles shorter taking I-95 and US 58 between Rocky Mount and Norfolk versus taking US 64 and US 17. Also, the 95/58 corridor has 54 miles of already-existing Interstate highway, which when considered along with the shorter distance gives that corridor a CLEAR advantage should an Interstate corridor between Raleigh and Norfolk be pursued. While US 64 is freeway grade east of Rocky Mount to Williamston and US 17 has freeway segments around Windsor, Edenton, and E-City, almost all of that freeway mileage lacks paved shoulders (an Interstate requirement).
Regarding traffic volumes, US 64 west of I-95 sees a bit more than US 58 east of I-95 does. NCDOT traffic volume maps show US 64 bottoming out at 18K between US 258 and NC 39, but is otherwise 20K+. Meanwhile, per VDOT, all of US 58 between Emporia and Courtland is at or below 15K. US 58 bumps up to the 18-20K range between Courtland and Holland, but doesn't really reach US 64 levels until east of Holland.
Quote from: WashuOtakuI believe this has already been touched on before.
Yes it has. And it was determined then that it's local business interests that are pushing an Interstate corridor east of Rocky Mount, not NCDOT.
Quote from: hbelkins on August 15, 2014, 11:03:07 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 15, 2014, 07:21:31 PM
Still, it's sad and embarrassing that an Interstate connection hasn't been made between Raleigh and Hampton Roads... The businesses are right in this instance.
Why? There's a perfectly good four-lane corridor available. Not everything has to be an interstate.
Port of Newport News direct freeway connection to Raleigh and part of the Interstate System. When I was at a prior employer, I had a number of import purchases come in from Wilmington and Newport News. This would be on a supply-chain argument where an Interstate designation can come into play.
Is it currently served well, yes. Should a full freeway corridor be built - I think so. If it is signed as an interstate as part of the overall Interstate Highway System, yes I have no issue with it.
I do agree it should be a 2di (I-46 or I-48 makes most sense) and the designation extended to Williamston, with a potential extension farther east if upgraded.
Quote from: RoadMaster09 on August 26, 2014, 09:35:13 PM
I do agree it should be a 2di (I-46 or I-48 makes most sense) and the designation extended to Williamston, with a potential extension farther east if upgraded.
I agree too, but FHWA isn't going to allow such a short interstate right off the bat without some politician forcing it like I-99. As a result, it's on the slow boat to China.