Sign plans were released today by NCDOT for the East End Connector project in Durham for the project letting in October. Not too surprising to me is that it comes with a new interstate designation for North Carolina, I-885, which will start at the US 70 East exit of I-85 in Durham use the new connector to get to NC 147 (the Durham Freeway) South and use that route to terminate at I-40. It will be signed as a North-South route. Construction is to start on the Connector by the end of the year.
The sign plans can be accessed at the bottom of this page: http://dotw-xfer01.dot.state.nc.us/dsplan/2014%20Highway%20Letting/10-21-14/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Durham%20U-0071%20C203394/Roadway/Part%20III/ (http://dotw-xfer01.dot.state.nc.us/dsplan/2014%20Highway%20Letting/10-21-14/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Durham%20U-0071%20C203394/Roadway/Part%20III/)
Wasn't Route 147 between I-85 and I-40 originally proposed as a routing of I-40? If that's the case, interesting that part of it (between the East End Connector and I-40) is now returning to the Interstate system through this project.
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
Wasn't Route 147 between I-85 and I-40 originally proposed as a routing of I-40? If that's the case, interesting that part of it (between the East End Connector and I-40) is now returning to the Interstate system through this project.
Chris,
You're correct - http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
My guess is that they're saving I-685 for any future upgrade of I-85 Business in Greensboro, but even that's a total shot in the dark as we speak.
Quote from: Henry on August 19, 2014, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
My guess is that they're saving I-685 for any future upgrade of I-85 Business in Greensboro, but even that's a total shot in the dark as we speak.
That's because Greensboro got I-785.
What are they going to do with NC-147 (TOLL) south of I-40?
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 19, 2014, 03:58:17 PM
What are they going to do with NC-147 (TOLL) south of I-40?
No change.
Quote from: CanesFan27 on August 19, 2014, 04:47:02 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 19, 2014, 03:58:17 PM
What are they going to do with NC-147 (TOLL) south of I-40?
No change.
Though I'm not surprised that NC 147 Toll will continue as normal since NCDOT had to quickly back-peddle on I-540 south of I-40 when they decided to make all that a toll road too. But it seems silly since NC 147 will be in concurrency with new I-885 for a section of it. Also, I haven't seen this on their proposed route change page yet; guessing it was decided more recently and it will be something they will hopefully request this Fall to AASHTO.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 19, 2014, 05:44:16 PM
But it seems silly since NC 147 will be in concurrency with new I-885 for a section of it.
This though isn't particularly novel for new 3dis in NC (785 with 840/US 29, 795 with US 264 and for a while US 117) - come to think of it, the only part of new 885 that will NOT be concurrent with another route is the East End Connector!
Quote from: TheStranger on August 19, 2014, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 19, 2014, 05:44:16 PM
But it seems silly since NC 147 will be in concurrency with new I-885 for a section of it.
This though isn't particularly novel for new 3dis in NC (785 with 840/US 29, 795 with US 264 and for a while US 117) - come to think of it, the only part of new 885 that will NOT be concurrent with another route is the East End Connector!
Yeah I find that odd as well.
Odd perhaps, but not unprecedented on the Interstate system. Plus, given that the Interstate system is considered the top tier in the highway hierarchy, one could consider that any US or state route concurrency is just secondary.
Quote from: froggie on August 19, 2014, 09:03:26 PM
Odd perhaps, but not unprecedented on the Interstate system. Plus, given that the Interstate system is considered the top tier in the highway hierarchy, one could consider that any US or state route concurrency is just secondary.
I-587 and I-790 immediately come to mind. Concurrent with NY 28 and NY 5, respectively, for their entire length. Ditto with I-99 and US 15/220. Or the I-86/NY 17 concurrency that currently exists.
There has been a tendency among the Southern states (AL, GA, SC, NC) to avoid duplicating x85's across the states. If you look back at the "sequence" of number issuances over time, it sort of goes like this:
285 GA
485 GA (planned, never built)
185 SC
385 SC
585 SC
185 GA (first duplication)
485 NC (Charlotte loop, number never signed in GA)
985 GA
785 NC (planned US 29 upgrade)
285 NC (planned US 52 upgrade)
685 AL (unsigned on temporary I-85 through Montgomery)
So, 885 has never been used in a state so far. I think that's part of it.
Otherwise, why did they choose I-785 years ago? To not repeat SC's
185/385/585, or GA's 985.
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 19, 2014, 03:58:17 PM
What are they going to do with NC-147 (TOLL) south of I-40?
I sort of think if they were given a "redo", they'd end 147 at the interchange with I-885... and redo the southern end beyond I-40 as a NC 885 (TOLL)
Quote from: sturmde on August 21, 2014, 02:16:50 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on August 19, 2014, 03:58:17 PM
What are they going to do with NC-147 (TOLL) south of I-40?
I sort of think if they were given a "redo", they'd end 147 at the interchange with I-885... and redo the southern end beyond I-40 as a NC 885 (TOLL)
Meh... Don't see that happening. NC 147 will continue to exist, as that designation isn't going anywhere, both toll and non-toll section.
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
My opinion is that they trying to keep it somewhat organized by as it traverses through the state. Sure, that's already blown with I-485 in Charlotte and Future I-285 in Lexington; but I could see them purposesly saving it for something in the Greensboro area or another interstate in the Durham area (i.e. Future NC 472 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf)).
I've always believed that I-685 would make sense for the entire circle around Greensboro so I-840 can be Business 40 in W-S when those upgrades are done....and before anyone says it I know this belongs in Fictional forum lol
Does 73 not have all its 3dis free for renumbering 840, etc?
Quote from: english si on August 21, 2014, 08:15:59 PM
Does 73 not have all its 3dis free for renumbering 840, etc?
Well that's from left field. :confused:
Yes, I-73 doesn't have any siblings as of yet, but why renumber a route that already exists?
Hi! New here, long time transportation geek.
Regarding I-885. I am not usually a big fan of all these interstate spur designations, but I do like this one.
Here's my addition:
- Designate the Durham Freeway through downtown and over the East End Connector as the primary route of US70
- There are too many multiplexed US routes on top of I-85... Mainline US 15, 70, and 501 all share the route. This would simplify things by removing the US70 overlay except for the short stretch between exits 170-172, and any conflicts could be reduced by adding auxiliary lanes to I-85 on that short stretch.
- This turns US 70 into a pure east-west route rather than going east-west/north-south/east-west
- Re-sign the toll portion of NC147 as NC885 (or do away with the rule preventing toll roads from being signed as interstates, and call it I-885)
- Retire the NC147 designation entirely. It had a good run.
Next step will be converting US70 between the East End Connector and I-540 to a freeway. Interchanges are planned at Brier Creek Pkwy, T.W. Alexander Dr, Aviation Parkway extension, Leesville/Page, Miami/Sherron, and Lynn/Pleasant. This will finally result in a true freeway grid with multiple routes through the triangle.
As a side note, US70 is one of the most interesting roads in NC. It has its own route for much of its length rather than being multiplexed on top of an interstate. I count seven places where it shares a route with an interstate:
- I-26 exit 19 in Weaverville to I-240 exit 5b in Asheville - 9 miles
- I-40 from exit 65 to exit 72 between Black Mountain and Old Fort - 7 miles
- I-85 from exit 84 to exit 87 between Salisbury and Lextingon - 3 miles
- I-85 from exit 118 to 119 in Greensboro - 1 mile
- I-40 from exit 220 to 223 in Greensboro - 3 miles
- I-85 from exit 170 to exit 178 in Durham - 8 miles (which could easily be reduced to 2 miles after EEC, as mentioned above)
- I-40 from exit 306 to 309 in Garner - 3 miles
Another bit of US-70 in NC trivia is that near where it crosses I-95 there are four separate, parallel routes signed as US 70: US 70, US 70 Bypass, US 70 Business, and US 70 Alternate.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on August 21, 2014, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
My opinion is that they trying to keep it somewhat organized by as it traverses through the state. Sure, that's already blown with I-485 in Charlotte and Future I-285 in Lexington; but I could see them purposesly saving it for something in the Greensboro area or another interstate in the Durham area (i.e. Future NC 472 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf)).
My belief is that all beltways are given a unique number (with the possible exception of I-270 that exists in Columbus and halfway around St. Louis), so the fact that I-285 was skipped over in favor of I-485 (Charlotte Outerbelt) makes sense, as I-285 is already in use for the Perimeter in Atlanta.
Looks like word of the proposed I-885 in Durham has finally made it to Raleigh's 'Road Worrier':
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/08/4134356_road-worrier-durhams-east-end.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/08/4134356_road-worrier-durhams-east-end.html)
Looks like it won't be until 2019 though until you will see any signs, if approved.
Quote from: orulzThis turns US 70 into a pure east-west route rather than going east-west/north-south/east-west
Strictly speaking, rerouting US 70 onto the East End Connector would result in it going southeast-north-southeast, rather than the east-south-southeast route it currently follows.
You offer some good reasons for rerouting US 70. But the one I quoted is not one of them.
I guess what I mean by a pure east west route is that US70 would go more in a straight line through Durham rather than zig zagging around. There would have course be a small 1 mile zig zag over the EEC but that is much smaller than the zig zag that it currently makes.
The current US 70 doesn't really zig-zag either...the only exception being the short bit along I-85 between 15/501 and Hillandale Rd, but that's less pronounced than what it would be along the EEC.
The contract has been awarded for this project, just under $142M to Dragados USA, Inc.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/11-18-2014%20Central%20Letting/Durham2.pdf
Durham Herald-Sun has coverage of the award this morning; construction can start in February.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x1476888653/DOT-picks-builder-for-East-End-Connector
Quote from: cl94 on August 20, 2014, 03:36:41 PM
Quote from: froggie on August 19, 2014, 09:03:26 PM
Odd perhaps, but not unprecedented on the Interstate system. Plus, given that the Interstate system is considered the top tier in the highway hierarchy, one could consider that any US or state route concurrency is just secondary.
I-587 and I-790 immediately come to mind. Concurrent with NY 28 and NY 5, respectively, for their entire length. Ditto with I-99 and US 15/220. Or the I-86/NY 17 concurrency that currently exists.
I-530 and US 65
I-240 and OK 3
I-444 and US 75
There are probably dozens of examples across the country.
NCDOT has issued a press release for the start of construction on the East End Connector:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=10604
The release states that "Once completed, the NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885." (emphasis added). So the I-885 thing isn't happening just yet.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 07, 2015, 09:54:49 AM
NCDOT has issued a press release for the start of construction on the East End Connector:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=10604
The release states that "Once completed, the NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885." (emphasis added). So the I-885 thing isn't happening just yet.
It's a proposed route, no question; I think OP got too excited when making the thread. :cool:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 07, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
It's a proposed route, no question; I think OP got too excited when making the thread. :cool:
It shows up on sign plans, so it's about as final as a proposed route can be from one standpoint (to fully exist as a signed Interstate, a route must be approved by AASHTO, approved by FHWA, and signed by the state).
Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 07, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
It's a proposed route, no question; I think OP got too excited when making the thread. :cool:
It shows up on sign plans, so it's about as final as a proposed route can be from one standpoint (to fully exist as a signed Interstate, a route must be approved by AASHTO, approved by FHWA, and signed by the state).
The News & Observer asked NCDOT about I-885 and they admitted its what they would like and it is noted in letting that it might change. So it's no slam-dunk here, just a plan of action that they hope will happen when they do request AASHTO and FHWA.
NCDOT held a ground breaking for the East End Connector project yesterday. A link to the news release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11051 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11051) (It contains a link to the official NCDOT project site.)
Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 08, 2015, 12:35:15 AM
Quote from: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 04:22:10 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 07, 2015, 04:11:44 PM
It's a proposed route, no question; I think OP got too excited when making the thread. :cool:
It shows up on sign plans, so it's about as final as a proposed route can be from one standpoint (to fully exist as a signed Interstate, a route must be approved by AASHTO, approved by FHWA, and signed by the state).
The News & Observer asked NCDOT about I-885 and they admitted its what they would like and it is noted in letting that it might change. So it's no slam-dunk here, just a plan of action that they hope will happen when they do request AASHTO and FHWA.
Here's some interesting info from the Interstate-Guide entry (http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-885_nc.html):
QuoteNCDOT will submit Interstate 885 to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) at a future meeting for the planned corridor between Interstates 40 and 85. Sign schematics by NCDOT already show the route acknowledged for the East End Connector.
Right of way acquisition for the East End Connector commenced in April 2012. Construction on the $182-million project was pushed back from April 2014 to a starting date in September 2014.
So if this is true, then they're already one year behind on their construction plans.
Construction was delayed several times by delays in relocating utilities in the path of the new roads.
Quote from: orulz on September 09, 2014, 10:33:23 AM
Hi! New here, long time transportation geek.
Regarding I-885. I am not usually a big fan of all these interstate spur designations, but I do like this one.
Here's my addition:
- Designate the Durham Freeway through downtown and over the East End Connector as the primary route of US70
- There are too many multiplexed US routes on top of I-85... Mainline US 15, 70, and 501 all share the route. This would simplify things by removing the US70 overlay except for the short stretch between exits 170-172, and any conflicts could be reduced by adding auxiliary lanes to I-85 on that short stretch.
- This turns US 70 into a pure east-west route rather than going east-west/north-south/east-west
- Re-sign the toll portion of NC147 as NC885 (or do away with the rule preventing toll roads from being signed as interstates, and call it I-885)
- Retire the NC147 designation entirely. It had a good run.
Next step will be converting US70 between the East End Connector and I-540 to a freeway. Interchanges are planned at Brier Creek Pkwy, T.W. Alexander Dr, Aviation Parkway extension, Leesville/Page, Miami/Sherron, and Lynn/Pleasant. This will finally result in a true freeway grid with multiple routes through the triangle.
More likely: If I-885 is approved, US 70 will revert to its old route through Durham (presently Business 70). This would remove the I-85/US 70 overlap. NC 147 could be dropped south of its interchange with I-885 and the toll section renumbered NC 885. That way I-885 has an uncluttered shot around the east side of Durham, with no concurrences.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 25, 2015, 07:45:23 PM
More likely: If I-885 is approved, US 70 will revert to its old route through Durham (presently Business 70). This would remove the I-85/US 70 overlap. NC 147 could be dropped south of its interchange with I-885 and the toll section renumbered NC 885. That way I-885 has an uncluttered shot around the east side of Durham, with no concurrences.
It is against AASHTO guidelines to move a US highway onto a freeway then later moving it back to the old route. North Carolina violated this rule when they put US 117 back on its old route. Since it's North Carolina, I'm sure they'll be allowed to do it. If NCDOT wanted to make a 1 lane dirt road an interstate, AASHTO would rubber stamp it.
AASHTO ought not to be too dogmatic about this. Not only in NC, but all along the I-22, I-49, I-69, and I-99 corridors we have new interstates being pieced together from bits of freeway carrying US or state numbers. When the feds finally let you put up the interstate shields, the result is new concurrences. Maybe these concurrences make sense, but maybe they don't.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2015, 09:17:31 AM
AASHTO ought not to be too dogmatic about this. Not only in NC, but all along the I-22, I-49, I-69, and I-99 corridors we have new interstates being pieced together from bits of freeway carrying US or state numbers. When the feds finally let you put up the interstate shields, the result is new concurrences. Maybe these concurrences make sense, but maybe they don't.
The point is to eventually decommission sections of US routes that closely parallel and/or duplicate Interstates. US 220 might be an issue with that unless it gets downgraded north of Williamsport, but US 15 is a prime example of this. Some of the old road has been county-maintained in New York for so long that it would be stupid for the state to slap the old number on it, while part of the old road in PA has been obliterated.
I understand that point, and I could see downgrading US 117 to NC 117. But putting US 70 back on Main Street in Durham seems reasonable to me.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2015, 03:51:59 PM
I understand that point, and I could see downgrading US 117 to NC 117. But putting US 70 back on Main Street in Durham seems reasonable to me.
IMHO it is much more reasonable to reroute US 70 along the Durham Freeway than along its old Business 70 route through Durham, if its to be re-routed at all post-Connector. While NCDOT was able to take a US Route from an interstate freeway and place it back onto a 2-lane road with US 117 in the I-795 case, that freeway was less than a year old and NCDOT hadn't gotten around to changing most of the signs along the old route. The Business 70 designation along Main Street and elsewhere in Durham is more than 50 years old and I don't believe too many officials in Durham would want to encourage more traffic through narrow downtown streets (not to mention by Duke's East Campus area). If it makes sense to see US 70 travel through downtown at all, then using the Durham Freeway from I-85 to the Connector is a better idea.
Signs of progress on the East End Connector, such as construction zone barriers going up along US 70:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgribblenation.net%2Fncfutints%2Feec515apw08.jpg&hash=323f38b22ba5de517acf020a3a51b92ddd371df5)
This photo, and others taken by Adam Prince over the weekend, are available on my Future NC I-885 page:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
I would called it I-640, because it will start at I-40.
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
I think it should be called I-640, because it will start at I-40.
I-640 is to be the number for the Raleigh outer belt, should they finish it.
I-x85 makes sense as it is about linking from the Raleigh outer belt (OK, the interstate designation might not begin that far south) to I-85 and thus points north, rather than linking I-40 to Durham.
Quote from: Strider on August 19, 2014, 12:49:16 PM
I-885? that is going to be interesting. Why don't they use I-685? (I-285, I-485 and I-785 are already taken).
I think it should be called I-640, because it will start at I-40.
You've mentioned that three times now in short succession. We get your point, but I agree with Si on this...
Quote from: froggie on June 22, 2015, 11:04:49 AM
You've mentioned that three times now in short succession. We get your point, but I agree with Si on this...
Agreed. InterstatesRules445, please stop repeatedly posting the same thing over and over again. Thanks!
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2015, 04:44:30 AM
I-640 is to be the number for the Raleigh outer belt, should they finish it.
I-x85 makes sense as it is about linking from the Raleigh outer belt (OK, the interstate designation might not begin that far south) to I-85 and thus points north, rather than linking I-40 to Durham.
Agreed on both counts. Even if they weren't going to pursue an Interstate designation south of I-40, at least the top half should've been numbered I-640 with the remainder as NC 640. Allowing I-540 to return to its parent seems just wrong.
I-885 is a good fit for this new route, as it will provide another Interstate connection from I-85 to Raleigh, as mentioned above.
Here's some of the clearing being done along the Durham Freeway (photo from Adam Prince):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgribblenation.net%2Fncfutints%2Feec615apw01.jpg&hash=dccd1b6679a7de1bb4bf1927879cc00893edcaf1)
More photos are on my Future I-885 page:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
I think I posted this previously here, but if the I-885 designation is approved, it raises the question of how to designate the remaining portion of the Durham Freeway through downtown Durham. I think the official plan is to maintain the NC147 designation but I don't really like that plan.
I think it should be signed as US70, and the new EEC should then be designated as (I-885 south/US70 west) / (I-885 north/US70 east). To me this makes it clearer that the downtown portion of the Durham Freeway can serve as an alternate route to get to Raleigh from points west.
In fact, draw a straight line from the point where the Durham Freeway diverges from I-85 (I-85 exit 172) to the point where US70 intersects the Raleigh beltline (I-440 exit 7). My proposed US70 route would follow that line almost exactly, and as we all know, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line - a point evidently lost on NCDOT planners when they routed I-40 through Orange and Durham counties.
The tolled portion of NC147 in RTP should then be re-signed as NC885. This would relegate the NC147 designation to the history books.
Quote from: orulz on June 22, 2015, 05:05:32 PM
I think I posted this previously here, but if the I-885 designation is approved, it raises the question of how to designate the remaining portion of the Durham Freeway through downtown Durham. I think the official plan is to maintain the NC147 designation but I don't really like that plan.
I think it should be signed as US70, and the new EEC should then be designated as (I-885 south/US70 west) / (I-885 north/US70 east). To me this makes it clearer that the downtown portion of the Durham Freeway can serve as an alternate route to get to Raleigh from points west.
In fact, draw a straight line from the point where the Durham Freeway diverges from I-85 (I-85 exit 172) to the point where US70 intersects the Raleigh beltline (I-440 exit 7). My proposed US70 route would follow that line almost exactly, and as we all know, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line - a point evidently lost on NCDOT planners when they routed I-40 through Orange and Durham counties.
The tolled portion of NC147 in RTP should then be re-signed as NC885. This would relegate the NC147 designation to the history books.
To answer the question, the plan is for NC 147 to stay. US 70 already bee-lines straight to I-85, no reason to reroute it back through downtown Durham.
Quote from: orulz on June 22, 2015, 05:05:32 PM
My proposed US70 route would follow that line almost exactly, and as we all know, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line - a point evidently lost on NCDOT planners when they routed I-40 through Orange and Durham counties.
The I-85/NC 147 route, from the I-40 fork in Orange County to I-40 in RTP, is 25 miles. The I-40 distance is 20 miles (Exit 259 to Exit 279). So the I-40 route is the shorter expressway distance between these points.
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2015, 04:44:30 AM
I-640 is to be the number for the Raleigh outer belt, should they finish it.
So would 640 replace 540 once the loop is completed?
Quote from: mvak36 on June 22, 2015, 10:39:33 PM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2015, 04:44:30 AM
I-640 is to be the number for the Raleigh outer belt, should they finish it.
So would 640 replace 540 once the loop is completed?
Not as currently proposed. The remainder of the Outer Loop is to be a continuation of the NC 540 Triangle Expressway Toll Road with the next section to be built (according to the recently approved 2016-2025 State TIP) from the NC 55 Apex Bypass to US 401 starting in 2018. The next section to be constructed is to be from US 401 to I-40 in 2022, then I-40 back to US 64/264 (I-495) in 2025.
Quote from: mvak36 on June 22, 2015, 10:39:33 PM
Quote from: english si on June 22, 2015, 04:44:30 AM
I-640 is to be the number for the Raleigh outer belt, should they finish it.
So would 640 replace 540 once the loop is completed?
That was the original plan nearly two decades ago; that is no longer the case thanks to the toll roads. What exists today of I-540 will remain; Toll NC 540 will be the remainder of the futre loop.
I have posted photos taken over the past few weeks at both the western and eastern ends of the Connector Project showing construction progress on my Future I-885 site: http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Any updates on Interstate 885?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 04:01:28 PM
Any updates on Interstate 885?
Here's a news report from a couple weeks ago about a traffic shift of the southbound lanes of the Durham Freeway needed for East End Connector construction: http://abc11.com/1198749/ (http://abc11.com/1198749/)
I have added photos contributed to my site showing East End Connector construction taken along US 70 West in Durham last weekend. They can be accessed on my Future I-885 page:
http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
I heard there was a plan to make NC 147 south of Interstate 40 NC 885. Is that still the case, or will the existing NC 147 designation remain corridor-wide?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 31, 2016, 04:35:44 PM
I heard there was a plan to make NC 147 south of Interstate 40 NC 885. Is that still the case, or will the existing NC 147 designation remain corridor-wide?
The signage plan for the East End Connector project indicates that NC 147 and I-885 will be concurrent southbound from their interchange, so probably the NC 147 designation will remain. See the gribblenation page, near the bottom:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut885.html
I think that NC147 should be retired completely, and the leg of the Durham Freeway that extends west from the EEC should be resigned as US 70. The EEC itself then becomes a short multiplex of US 70 and I-885. I know I have suggested this before but I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere.
LGL44VL
Quote from: orulz on November 01, 2016, 01:38:20 PM
I think that NC147 should be retired completely, and the leg of the Durham Freeway that extends west from the EEC should be resigned as US 70. The EEC itself then becomes a short multiplex of US 70 and I-885. I know I have suggested this before but I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere.
LGL44VL
However, there is still the tolled portion of NC 147 that connects to NC 540. That is why it remains more than anything else.
My understanding is that as of a year or two ago there is no longer an all-out ban on tolls for interstate highways, but I am not sure of the specifics and whether that could apply here or not. But if it is not applicable then resigning the toll portion of NC147 as NC885 would be an option.
Anyway I like the idea of minimizing multiplexes where it makes sense. The current plan has US 70 over the northern part of i-885 and NC147 over the southern part.
LGL44VL
Quote from: orulz on November 01, 2016, 01:38:20 PM
I think that NC147 should be retired completely, and the leg of the Durham Freeway that extends west from the EEC should be resigned as US 70. The EEC itself then becomes a short multiplex of US 70 and I-885. I know I have suggested this before but I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere.
LGL44VL
I thought about this, too, but I don't think it's an idea that has any support in Durham.
When Interstate 885 is completed to NC 147, will the exit numbers on NC 147/Interstate 885 remain the same? And will the exit numbers on the solo portion of Interstate 885 count upwards from the 147/885 junction with Interstate 40?
It would make the most sense, for I-885, for the exits and mileposts to be counted from where it ends, at I-85 - don't you think? Not sure any official announcement has been made.
LGL44VL
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2016, 01:57:28 PM
When Interstate 885 is completed to NC 147, will the exit numbers on NC 147/Interstate 885 remain the same? And will the exit numbers on the solo portion of Interstate 885 count upwards from the 147/885 junction with Interstate 40?
No and Yes. There will be new numbers. According to the sign plans, some of which are posted on my I-885 site, the exit at the split of NC 147 and I-885 North is to be Exit 4, while the I-70 East exit on the other side of the Connector will be Exit 6 and the existing Cheek Rd exit on US 70 will become Exit 7. The Cornwallis Rd exit at the southern end will be Exit 1.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2016, 04:31:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2016, 01:57:28 PM
When Interstate 885 is completed to NC 147, will the exit numbers on NC 147/Interstate 885 remain the same? And will the exit numbers on the solo portion of Interstate 885 count upwards from the 147/885 junction with Interstate 40?
No and Yes. There will be new numbers. According to the sign plans, some of which are posted on my I-885 site, the exit at the split of NC 147 and I-885 North is to be Exit 4, while the I-70 East exit on the other side of the Connector will be Exit 6 and the existing Cheek Rd exit on US 70 will become Exit 7. The Cornwallis Rd exit at the southern end will be Exit 1.
Bob would you mind sharing the link to the entire signing plans again. It's been awhile and it would be helpful
Quote from: CanesFan27 on November 02, 2016, 05:00:49 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2016, 04:31:05 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2016, 01:57:28 PM
When Interstate 885 is completed to NC 147, will the exit numbers on NC 147/Interstate 885 remain the same? And will the exit numbers on the solo portion of Interstate 885 count upwards from the 147/885 junction with Interstate 40?
No and Yes. There will be new numbers. According to the sign plans, some of which are posted on my I-885 site, the exit at the split of NC 147 and I-885 North is to be Exit 4, while the I-70 East exit on the other side of the Connector will be Exit 6 and the existing Cheek Rd exit on US 70 will become Exit 7. The Cornwallis Rd exit at the southern end will be Exit 1.
Bob would you mind sharing the link to the entire signing plans again. It's been awhile and it would be helpful
No problem. The signing plans can be found at this link:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2014%20Highway%20Letting/11-18-14/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Durham%20U-0071%20C203394/Roadway/Part%20III/Signing.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2014%20Highway%20Letting/11-18-14/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Durham%20U-0071%20C203394/Roadway/Part%20III/Signing.pdf)
The file is quite large, you will notice southbound, that NC 147 is Exit 5, which makes more sense since it it 2 miles north of Ellis Road, which should be Exit 3.
Since there is a future 285, a 485 beltway, and now an 885 under construction, does anyone know where a 685 might go? Although this is fictional, I'd put 685 along US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 at Kings Mountain (as a completed freeway between the two Interstates, of course).
Given how many x26 options are available, I would save I-685 for something like a future upgrade of I-85 Business through Lexington/Thomasville/High Point.
LGL44VL
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Since there is a future 285, a 485 beltway, and now an 885 under construction, does anyone know where a 685 might go? Although this is fictional, I'd put 685 along US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 at Kings Mountain (as a completed freeway between the two Interstates, of course).
I would use Interstate 685 for the US 64 corridor between I-73/74 and I-85. Since I-285 will connect to Winston-Salem, it seems logical to have I-685 connect to Asheville. PLEASE note that this corridor will utilize the Under Construction US 64 Asheville Bypass.
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on November 06, 2016, 09:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2016, 03:14:32 PM
Since there is a future 285, a 485 beltway, and now an 885 under construction, does anyone know where a 685 might go? Although this is fictional, I'd put 685 along US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 at Kings Mountain (as a completed freeway between the two Interstates, of course).
I would use Interstate 685 for the US 64 corridor between I-73/74 and I-85. Since I-285 will connect to Winston-Salem, it seems logical to have I-685 connect to Asheboro. PLEASE note that this corridor will utilize the Under Construction US 64 Asheboro Bypass.
FTFY
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2016, 03:14:32 PMSince there is a future 285, a 485 beltway, and now an 885 under construction, does anyone know where a 685 might go?
US-1 between I-540 north of Raleigh and I-85 in Henderson would be my preference. US-1 between I-540 and NC-98 in Wake Forest is already slated to become a freeway, though there are currently no plans for any freeway upgrades north of Wake Forest.
http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)
But as you said, this is getting into fictional territory and off-topic...
Google Maps has February 2017 photos of construction of the Future I-885/NC 147 interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/BuTC2T7ojaP2
Photos at Angier Avenue (just north of NC 147) are from December:
https://goo.gl/maps/HpKn1ctjcjn
Quote from: wdcrft63 on April 13, 2017, 06:43:56 PM
Google Maps has February 2017 photos of construction of the Future I-885/NC 147 interchange:
https://goo.gl/maps/BuTC2T7ojaP2
Photos at Angier Avenue (just north of NC 147) are from December:
https://goo.gl/maps/HpKn1ctjcjn
I have late March photos taken along US 70, Angier Ave. and NC 147. I hope to have them posted in the next few days.
I have posted photos I took of East End Connector construction earlier this month on my Future I-885 page.
As an example here's the view northbound on the Durham Freeway (NC 147) approaching the future interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885317o.JPG&hash=6a072f65d14aae5706b94ed38a30c3191c61c1cf)
The other photos are here:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Have some new photos contributed to the website taken along the Durham Freeway (NC 147) North, including this one of the completed flyover ramp to take traffic from the Freeway south to the Connector:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj318hw.jpg&hash=b39544bb22a828f3c864b06ca67747930b143f23)
Other photos available at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Adam Prince drove west through the US 70 side of the Connector project this weekend:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Feecus70ap518aw.jpg&hash=2e3f67acc88e7e55c7a721f5b82bb3566ce761bc)
Other photos of his at the nearly 2/3 complete project are on my Future I-885 in NC webpage:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Seems to me that this Interstate binge isn't ending anytime soon, is it? Always great to see new construction pics, and I'm sure it will be a very nice drive when it's done.
Quote from: Henry on June 01, 2018, 09:27:33 AM
Seems to me that this Interstate binge isn't ending anytime soon, is it? Always great to see new construction pics, and I'm sure it will be a very nice drive when it's done.
Don't think that this is necessarily a big part of NC's Interstate "binge"; this simply is a short connector enhancing an Interstate-grade connector to northward I-85 from Raleigh and the rest of the eastern part of the "Triangle". Of course, some might opine that the nascent I-87 (and the superseded I-495 prior to that) also fulfills the role of conveying Raleigh-area traffic to a N-S Interstate corridor -- and that US 64 functionally did that absent any Interstate pretensions -- but I-885's location enables it to do "double duty" for both interregional and local purposes.
Quote from: sparker on June 02, 2018, 05:21:11 AM
Quote from: Henry on June 01, 2018, 09:27:33 AM
Seems to me that this Interstate binge isn't ending anytime soon, is it? Always great to see new construction pics, and I'm sure it will be a very nice drive when it's done.
Don't think that this is necessarily a big part of NC's Interstate "binge"; this simply is a short connector enhancing an Interstate-grade connector to northward I-85 from Raleigh and the rest of the eastern part of the "Triangle". Of course, some might opine that the nascent I-87 (and the superseded I-495 prior to that) also fulfills the role of conveying Raleigh-area traffic to a N-S Interstate corridor -- and that US 64 functionally did that absent any Interstate pretensions -- but I-885's location enables it to do "double duty" for both interregional and local purposes.
The I-885 connector plugs a very long-standing (50 years) gap between I-40 and I-85 North. Here in Durham we've been lobbying for this road for two generations; thank God it's finally being built.
I've posted several photos of East End Connector construction recently featured in a Durham newspaper article, such as this aerial at the future US 70 interchange:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2FEASTEND3NE071818CEL.jpg&hash=8d8aeaf2dcf25768a4d05e206221db5c31f438c0)
on my Future I-885 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Will they get toll happy and tack on an express lane to the third lane eventually? Lol
I have posted more contributed photos of I-885 construction at the US 70 end of the East End Connector project taken earlier this week on my Future I-885 in NC page: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Is NC 147 going to extend south/east of NC 540? It appears there is some ghost grading at the 147/540 interchange.
Quote from: bugo on August 25, 2018, 04:21:30 AM
Is NC 147 going to extend south/east of NC 540? It appears there is some ghost grading at the 147/540 interchange.
Yes. It will eventually connect to McCrimmon Parkway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article187507583.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article187507583.html)
QuoteAmong the other projects in the works is the widening of N.C. 54, the extension of N.C. 147 from where it now ends at the Western Wake Expressway down to McCrimmon Parkway, and the extension of McCrimmon Parkway to Aviation Parkway, where it will connect with Evans Road.
I have posted new photos of East End Connector construction at NC 147/Durham Freeway, courtesy of Adam Prince. The photos are on my Future I-885 in NC site: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-24-us-70-west-connector-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-24-us-70-west-connector-traffic-shift.aspx)
QuoteAn overnight traffic shift for U.S. 70 West is coming this week as part of the East End Connector project in Durham. It starts Wednesday, April 24, at 8 p.m. with the closure of the ramp from westbound U.S. 70 to N.C. 98.
Drivers wanting to access N.C. 98 will be sent on to the Cheek Road exit to access that highway.
Then overnight, U.S. 70 traffic will be moved into a different pattern between Lynn Road and Cheek Road. It should all be in place by 5 a.m. on Thursday.
Motorists need to slow down and pay extra attention as they travel into the work zone and go through the traffic shift.
The East End Connector is a 3.9-mile divided highway that will connect U.S. 70 to the Durham Freeway. The work includes upgrading U.S. 70 to a freeway between Pleasant Drive and N.C. 98. It will provide a multi-lane interstate connection between Interstate 85, the Durham Freeway and I-40 on the east side of Durham.
The new highway, expected to be designated Interstate 885, is expected to help alleviate congestion on the Durham Freeway and on local roads such as U.S. 15-501, and Roxboro, Mangum, Gregson and Duke streets.
New photos of US 70 West moved onto its permanent alignment at the Future I-885 interchange (US 70 East lanes to be temporarily shifted there as well soon) courtesy of Isaiah Sconiers, here at the start of the new roadway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885is419cw.jpg&hash=35c6f0b90c765d34f4cdff54b2b704eb2a73bc93)
More photos can be found at my Future I-885 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
In other future interstate news, it appears the final segment of the I-295 Fayetteville Outer Loop has been significantly delayed, it no longer appears in NCDOT's latest 12-month letting list.
Has the Interstate 885 designation been approved yet? If not, this highway will not be signed as such.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 29, 2019, 02:01:02 PM
Has the Interstate 885 designation been approved yet? If not, this highway will not be signed as such.
NCDOT has not sent in an application to AASHTO, do not know about the FHWA. The next opportunity is at the meeting of the AASHTO US Route Number committee May 20 in Park City, UT.
The interchange in the pic is located east of the US 70 Business interchange. Is that flyover in the distance for US 70 Business?
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2019, 10:49:22 PM
The interchange in the pic is located east of the US 70 Business interchange. Is that flyover in the distance for US 70 Business?
The flyover is for traffic headed from US 70 West to I-885 South. If, as some have suggested, US 70 should be moved onto the East End Connector and use NC 147 North to I-85, then the flyover would be US 70 West. The exit for US 70 Business is to be combined with the one for NC 98.
If US 70 was moved to the East End Connector, it would require a concurrency with I-40 from the Durham Freeway to S. Saunders St in Raleigh and cause the existing US 70 to be changed to 70 Business from Durham to Raleigh. Could be really confusing.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 30, 2019, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2019, 10:49:22 PM
The interchange in the pic is located east of the US 70 Business interchange. Is that flyover in the distance for US 70 Business?
The flyover is for traffic headed from US 70 West to I-885 South. If, as some have suggested, US 70 should be moved onto the East End Connector and use NC 147 North to I-85, then the flyover would be US 70 West. The exit for US 70 Business is to be combined with the one for NC 98.
Some may have suggested, but there's no chance US 70 will be routed over to NC147.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 01, 2019, 06:49:23 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on April 30, 2019, 11:45:28 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2019, 10:49:22 PM
The interchange in the pic is located east of the US 70 Business interchange. Is that flyover in the distance for US 70 Business?
The flyover is for traffic headed from US 70 West to I-885 South. If, as some have suggested, US 70 should be moved onto the East End Connector and use NC 147 North to I-85, then the flyover would be US 70 West. The exit for US 70 Business is to be combined with the one for NC 98.
Some may have suggested, but there's no chance US 70 will be routed over to NC147.
It'd be confusing and pointless, they tried that when the 70 bypass opened near Clayton, rerouted 70 on 40 from S. Saunders to the bypass exit and then the Fortify project put it back. Just I-885 will be fine, there will be a slight concurrence with 147 but, how many of us here in the Triangle refer to the Durham Freeway as 147.
I have added some new June photos showing construction progress, or more accurately lack of progress this spring due to all the wet weather, to my Future I-885 in NC page, courtesy of Adam Prince. There is a new exit and temporary exit sign for Carr Road on US 70 West:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Feec147nbap61619bw.jpg&hash=83c70fa98aec76466a1daa2fb60684be40b684b5)
The rest of the photos are at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 18, 2019, 11:25:11 PM
I have added some new June photos showing construction progress, or more accurately lack of progress this spring due to all the wet weather, to my Future I-885 in NC page, courtesy of Adam Prince. There is a new exit and temporary exit sign for Carr Road on US 70 West:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Feec147nbap61619bw.jpg&hash=83c70fa98aec76466a1daa2fb60684be40b684b5)
The rest of the photos are at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Might get pushed back even more, we just had some pretty serious rain here over the past 24 hrs.
Contractors have now begun installing overhead signage for the new NC 147 North lanes approaching the East End Connector that is planned to open in July. As per NCDOT tradition, not having official permission to sign a new route doesn't mean it can't be placed on signs, as shown in the only partially hidden I-885 shield in this photo from Charles M. Kunz:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885signscmk619aw.jpg&hash=4c4cc8e42d4859b073e70459d449f087a56db981)
The photo also shows NCDOT has changed its mind regarding giving I-885 a new set of exit numbers starting at I-40. Under the original plan drivers heading to the Triangle Expressway would see be both an Exit 1 for I-40 and an Exit 1 on Toll NC 147 at NC 540. Apparently they thought this would be too confusing. As the photo shows, the NC 147 exit will now be 9 instead of 4. Unknown if they plan to still use I-885 numbers on the Connector itself and US 70. (IMO I would renumber Toll NC 147 as Toll NC 885 to make this new plan more logical).
Quote from: bob7374 on June 24, 2019, 05:07:30 PM
Contractors have now begun installing overhead signage for the new NC 147 North lanes approaching the East End Connector that is planned to open in July. As per NCDOT tradition, not having official permission to sign a new route doesn't mean it can't be placed on signs, as shown in the only partially hidden I-885 shield in this photo from Charles M. Kunz:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885signscmk619aw.jpg&hash=4c4cc8e42d4859b073e70459d449f087a56db981)
The photo also shows NCDOT has changed its mind regarding giving I-885 a new set of exit numbers starting at I-40. Under the original plan drivers heading to the Triangle Expressway would see be both an Exit 1 for I-40 and an Exit 1 on Toll NC 147 at NC 540. Apparently they thought this would be too confusing. As the photo shows, the NC 147 exit will now be 9 instead of 4. Unknown if they plan to still use I-885 numbers on the Connector itself and US 70. (IMO I would renumber Toll NC 147 as Toll NC 885 to make this new plan more logical).
Hopefully they also rationalize the mismatched exits on the Connector: US 70 being Exit 5 northbound, 6B southbound; and NC 147 being Exit 5 southbound. Does anyone know if the NC 147-based exit numbers will extend all the way up 885 to 85 like how both I-76 and I-276 continue the PA Turnpike's mileage?
Quote from: bob7374 on June 24, 2019, 05:07:30 PM
Contractors have now begun installing overhead signage for the new NC 147 North lanes approaching the East End Connector that is planned to open in July. As per NCDOT tradition, not having official permission to sign a new route doesn't mean it can't be placed on signs, as shown in the only partially hidden I-885 shield in this photo from Charles M. Kunz:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885signscmk619aw.jpg&hash=4c4cc8e42d4859b073e70459d449f087a56db981)
The photo also shows NCDOT has changed its mind regarding giving I-885 a new set of exit numbers starting at I-40. Under the original plan drivers heading to the Triangle Expressway would see be both an Exit 1 for I-40 and an Exit 1 on Toll NC 147 at NC 540. Apparently they thought this would be too confusing. As the photo shows, the NC 147 exit will now be 9 instead of 4. Unknown if they plan to still use I-885 numbers on the Connector itself and US 70. (IMO I would renumber Toll NC 147 as Toll NC 885 to make this new plan more logical).
I was surprised that NCDOT didn't ask AASHTO to approve the I-885 designation in May. Everyone assumes there's no problem with getting permission, but its is time to ask.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 24, 2019, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 24, 2019, 05:07:30 PM
Contractors have now begun installing overhead signage for the new NC 147 North lanes approaching the East End Connector that is planned to open in July. As per NCDOT tradition, not having official permission to sign a new route doesn't mean it can't be placed on signs, as shown in the only partially hidden I-885 shield in this photo from Charles M. Kunz:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885signscmk619aw.jpg&hash=4c4cc8e42d4859b073e70459d449f087a56db981)
The photo also shows NCDOT has changed its mind regarding giving I-885 a new set of exit numbers starting at I-40. Under the original plan drivers heading to the Triangle Expressway would see be both an Exit 1 for I-40 and an Exit 1 on Toll NC 147 at NC 540. Apparently they thought this would be too confusing. As the photo shows, the NC 147 exit will now be 9 instead of 4. Unknown if they plan to still use I-885 numbers on the Connector itself and US 70. (IMO I would renumber Toll NC 147 as Toll NC 885 to make this new plan more logical).
I was surprised that NCDOT didn't ask AASHTO to approve the I-885 designation in May. Everyone assumes there's no problem with getting permission, but its is time to ask.
I was surprised too, especially when you consider that I-885 will be finished long before I-274 and I-285.
Quote from: LM117 on June 24, 2019, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 24, 2019, 06:30:44 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 24, 2019, 05:07:30 PM
Contractors have now begun installing overhead signage for the new NC 147 North lanes approaching the East End Connector that is planned to open in July. As per NCDOT tradition, not having official permission to sign a new route doesn't mean it can't be placed on signs, as shown in the only partially hidden I-885 shield in this photo from Charles M. Kunz:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885signscmk619aw.jpg&hash=4c4cc8e42d4859b073e70459d449f087a56db981)
The photo also shows NCDOT has changed its mind regarding giving I-885 a new set of exit numbers starting at I-40. Under the original plan drivers heading to the Triangle Expressway would see be both an Exit 1 for I-40 and an Exit 1 on Toll NC 147 at NC 540. Apparently they thought this would be too confusing. As the photo shows, the NC 147 exit will now be 9 instead of 4. Unknown if they plan to still use I-885 numbers on the Connector itself and US 70. (IMO I would renumber Toll NC 147 as Toll NC 885 to make this new plan more logical).
I was surprised that NCDOT didn't ask AASHTO to approve the I-885 designation in May. Everyone assumes there's no problem with getting permission, but its is time to ask.
I was surprised too, especially when you consider that I-885 will be finished long before I-274 and I-285.
Well,
technically Future I-274 and Future I-285 are already complete, just not I-274 or I-285. :spin:
Quote from: wdcrft63I was surprised that NCDOT didn't ask AASHTO to approve the I-885 designation in May. Everyone assumes there's no problem with getting permission, but its is time to ask.
I'm not. It's FHWA that has final say, not AASHTO. I think it's a safe bet that NCDOT already has some sort of preliminary approval from FHWA. They'd have needed it anyway since Federal highway funding is involved with the work.
Quote from: froggie on June 25, 2019, 08:12:19 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63I was surprised that NCDOT didn't ask AASHTO to approve the I-885 designation in May. Everyone assumes there's no problem with getting permission, but its is time to ask.
I'm not. It's FHWA that has final say, not AASHTO. I think it's a safe bet that NCDOT already has some sort of preliminary approval from FHWA. They'd have needed it anyway since Federal highway funding is involved with the work.
Even if FHWA has indicated that they don't have a problem with it, they may still want AASHTO to approve the number before adding it to the interstate system. That happened with I-795.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2007_10_19.pdf)
I've posted recent photos of construction taken by David Johnson, both at the Durham Freeway/NC 147 side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj719nw.jpg&hash=f0a95b678ca64735edd36b76f1a799453472b1ba)
and at the US 70 side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj719eew.jpg&hash=0d3d4ef96447b9af4852e6cff93cc5fffe06773c)
The remainder are on the Future I-885 in NC webpage: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on July 24, 2019, 11:41:11 PM
I've posted recent photos of construction taken by David Johnson, both at the Durham Freeway/NC 147 side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj719nw.jpg&hash=f0a95b678ca64735edd36b76f1a799453472b1ba)
and at the US 70 side:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj719eew.jpg&hash=0d3d4ef96447b9af4852e6cff93cc5fffe06773c)
The remainder are on the Future I-885 in NC webpage: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
It's great how they get lighting on their highways and we don't apparently.
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
Yes. I-885 will be a partial loop around the east side of Durham, connecting I-85 and I-40. It will also connect north Durham suburbs to the Research Triangle Park, where thousands of people work.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on July 27, 2019, 05:59:18 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
Yes. I-885 will be a partial loop around the east side of Durham, connecting I-85 and I-40. It will also connect north Durham suburbs to the Research Triangle Park, where thousands of people work.
That would come in handy, that's a nice design!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
No need to confuse the locals, just overlap NC 147 with I-885 for the short stretch. Granted, I'm local and it wouldn't confuse me but, being a former Yankee, we're used to it.
It'll be a good connector for those coming south to get to the park as opposed to using US 15-501 and would also kind of give a loop around Durham.
According to an NCDOT engineer who posted on the Facebook Tar Heel Roads group, the new NC 147 (Future I-885) North lanes in the vicinity of the East End Connector interchange are to open some time tomorrow (Friday 8/16) evening.
Quote from: bob7374 on August 15, 2019, 11:20:13 PM
According to an NCDOT engineer who posted on the Facebook Tar Heel Roads group, the new NC 147 (Future I-885) North lanes in the vicinity of the East End Connector interchange are to open some time tomorrow (Friday 8/16) evening.
Will try to recon this weekend. Thank you Bob!
Looks like the opening will be on Saturday morning now:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-16-northbound-durham-freeway-lanes-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-16-northbound-durham-freeway-lanes-open.aspx)
Is Interstate 885 signposted yet (even as Future 885)? If not, does anyone know when such signs might be erected?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 16, 2019, 04:40:12 PM
Is Interstate 885 signposted yet (even as Future 885)? If not, does anyone know when such signs might be erected?
No and NCDOT still hasn't submitted an application to AASHTO yet.
I have posted new photos of the opened NC 147 North lanes at the Future I-885 interchange courtesy of David Johnson, including those of the new underpass after the future I-885/NC 147 North split:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj819mw.jpg&hash=aacf2f436e47a796ed71089a866c0f186f09b0dd)
The rest of the photos are on my Future I-885 in NC webpage: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Quote from: LM117 on August 16, 2019, 05:23:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 16, 2019, 04:40:12 PM
Is Interstate 885 signposted yet (even as Future 885)? If not, does anyone know when such signs might be erected?
No and NCDOT still hasn't submitted an application to AASHTO yet.
Which makes the pictures at bob7374's link that much more interesting, as the covered-up BGSs quite clearly have what appears to be an I-885 shield.
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
Widen I-85 to the VA state line to six lanes then! Maybe this could be the alternative to Greensboro when using US 70 and I-540 or the aviation parkway
(If it ever gets upgraded which i think it's doubtful), traffic on I-40 wouldn't be as high.
That doesn't mean I-40 shouldn't get widened or not have express lanes though.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 19, 2019, 03:06:02 PM
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
Widen I-85 to the VA state line to six lanes then! Maybe this could be the alternative to Greensboro when using US 70 and I-540 or the aviation parkway (If it ever gets upgraded which i think it's doubtful), traffic on I-40 wouldn't be as high. That doesn't mean I-40 shouldn't get widened or not have express lanes though.
Ah, no, 85 north of Durham is a rural freeway and at the VA State line it stays rural to the Petersburg suburbs, demand isn't there, yet.
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
Get rid of the 147 designation entirely.
Sign 885 on the north-south segment from I-85 to 540, and sign US70 on the Durham Freeway segment through downtown.
This cuts back the US70/I-85 multiplex to less than 2 miles, from exit 170 to 172.
And yes, this does provide an excellent route from RTP and the suburbs of western Wake County towards the northeast. It will also take a lot of traffic off streets through Central Durham such as Alston, Mangum, Roxboro, Duke, and Gregson.
Though there is no good reason this was delayed for so long, the need was so obvious that this was first planned sometime back in the 1950s. This is going to be a very useful road from the day it opens (unlike "Complete 540" - which will be a ghost town for years, decades perhaps, before there will be enough induced demand from new sprawl to fill it.)
Quote from: orulz on August 19, 2019, 07:22:19 PM
Quote from: sturmde on August 09, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on July 27, 2019, 03:54:00 PM
What's the point of I-885? Is it to connect I-85 and I-40 together?
It really would make sense for NC 147 to be truncated at the intersection with I-885 when it opens, and see NC redesignate the southern end as TOLL NC 885. In a sense, it becomes the best route from the RTP area northward to Virginia and DC to go up 885 to 85...
Get rid of the 147 designation entirely.
Sign 885 on the north-south segment from I-85 to 540, and sign US70 on the Durham Freeway segment through downtown.
This cuts back the US70/I-85 multiplex to less than 2 miles, from exit 170 to 172.
And yes, this does provide an excellent route from RTP and the suburbs of western Wake County towards the northeast. It will also take a lot of traffic off streets through Central Durham such as Alston, Mangum, Roxboro, Duke, and Gregson.
Though there is no good reason this was delayed for so long, the need was so obvious that this was first planned sometime back in the 1950s. This is going to be a very useful road from the day it opens (unlike "Complete 540" - which will be a ghost town for years, decades perhaps, before there will be enough induced demand from new sprawl to fill it.)
If the part near 540 is going to be a freeway, then it will work for sure. But the expressway option is still up, so it's not for sure.
That part has tolls, so an interstate designation there is not possible. Maybe NC 885.
Thought you were talking about near the Avation parkway. but you are talking about the Triangle Expressway! haha
I say leave US 70 as-is. Truncate NC 147 to the future East End connector, and renumber exits 10 through 16 based on the new mileage of NC 147.
Upcoming traffic shift on US-70 East.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on October 03, 2019, 02:54:50 PM
Upcoming traffic shift on US-70 East.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx)
"The new highway, expected to be designated I-885." Does anyone know if that request has gone in to AASHTO?
Better question: has the request gone in to FHWA, who has final approval?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 03, 2019, 05:47:06 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 03, 2019, 02:54:50 PM
Upcoming traffic shift on US-70 East.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-03-us-70-east-traffic-shift.aspx)
"The new highway, expected to be designated I-885." Does anyone know if that request has gone in to AASHTO?
As of AASHTO's last meeting, no. AASHTO's fall meeting begins this Saturday and the deadline for applications was September 16, so NCDOT may have finally decided to send it in.
https://route.transportation.org (https://route.transportation.org)
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Better question: has the request gone in to FHWA, who has final approval?
True, but FHWA may want AASHTO to approve the number first. The most notable example of that is I-795.
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Better question: has the request gone in to FHWA, who has final approval?
I don't know. This feels like NCDOT has already went and requested the I-885 designation in the past somehow, otherwise they wouldn't have talked about it every time, or post up I-885 signs on the covered overhead signage.
Quote from: Strider on October 03, 2019, 10:40:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Better question: has the request gone in to FHWA, who has final approval?
I don't know. This feels like NCDOT has already went and requested the I-885 designation in the past somehow, otherwise they wouldn't have talked about it every time, or post up I-885 signs on the covered overhead signage.
I would hope so, but this is the same NCDOT that thought substandard bridge shoulders over the Cape Fear River and an incomplete freeway-to-freeway interchange at I-95 wouldn't matter for getting I-295 approved...
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2019, 08:47:09 AM
Quote from: Strider on October 03, 2019, 10:40:56 PM
Quote from: froggie on October 03, 2019, 07:24:33 PM
Better question: has the request gone in to FHWA, who has final approval?
I don't know. This feels like NCDOT has already went and requested the I-885 designation in the past somehow, otherwise they wouldn't have talked about it every time, or post up I-885 signs on the covered overhead signage.
I would hope so, but this is the same NCDOT that thought substandard bridge shoulders over the Cape Fear River and an incomplete freeway-to-freeway interchange at I-95 wouldn't matter for getting I-295 approved...
I think FHWA was more concerned about the interchange than the bridges, since FHWA added I-295 to the interstate system nearly a year ago.
The contract that NCDOT recently awarded to widen I-95 also calls for fixing that interchange, so that may be why FHWA went ahead and approved I-295.
I'm sure the Interstate 885 will be confirmed sooner or later. After all, it took a little under 20 years from first conception, for the Interstate 274 portion of the Winston-Salem Beltway to get approved as Interstate 274.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 04, 2019, 08:47:09 AM
substandard bridge shoulders over the Cape Fear River
Interstate highway standards permit bridges "long bridges", those over 200 ft long, to have a reduced 4 ft right shoulder. It's not "substandard" by interstate standards. The state has similar to plans to incorporate the existing US-17 bridges into the Interstate 87 project, at least the one near Edenton. It was only built in 1999, and is modern with the exception of that shoulder, that could reasonably also be widened to include it. The bridge near Williamston may also be retained or potentially bypassed. The bridge near Hertford definitely needs to be replaced, it's significantly older, narrow and doesn't even have 4 ft shoulders. The current feasibility study did not identify replacing it, though it will likely happen later on as US-17 upgrades get underway, whenever funding is acquired.
Quote from: sprjus4Interstate highway standards permit bridges "long bridges", those over 200 ft long, to have a reduced 4 ft right shoulder. It's not "substandard" by interstate standards.
More appropriately called "minimum standards" in this case.
"Full" standard would have been a full 10ft right shoulder.
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2019, 08:24:41 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Interstate highway standards permit bridges "long bridges", those over 200 ft long, to have a reduced 4 ft right shoulder. It's not "substandard" by interstate standards.
More appropriately called "minimum standards" in this case. "Full" standard would have been a full 10ft right shoulder.
Point is - it's not required - and isn't likely a reason to prevent an interstate designation for the rest of the highway which does meet "full" standards.
They could reasonably widen the twin-bridges however, they're only 700 ft long, and relatively new (past 15-20 years).
Also, there's another set of bridges just beyond that that also has a 4 ft right shoulder, those are 800 ft long, and also relatively new (past 15-20 years). Again, could reasonably be widened.
I'm not advocating for substandard bridges or "minimum standards", but it shouldn't be the reason to not designate the rest of the highway which indeed does meet "full" interstate standards. There should at least be a provision that the state will eventually, when funding allows, get around to widening the bridge structure to include the full shoulder. But as far as I've seen, there doesn't appear to be one.
If you haven't seen the Fall 2019 AASHTO meeting thread, there was no application made for I-885 at the meeting in St. Louis (or for any other interstate route). Guess they plan to do it (hopefully) last minute in the spring of 2020. Only applications were for US 17 related to the new bypass south of New Bern and an interesting one rerouting US 70 through Greensboro.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-holloway-st-nightly-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-holloway-st-nightly-closure.aspx)
QuoteDURHAM – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are set to close the section of Holloway Street that passes under U.S. 70 for four nights beginning tonight.
The nightly closures are scheduled from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
A signed detour will direct eastbound drivers onto Miami Boulevard, Geer Street, Cheek Road and Hoover Road to get back to Holloway Street on the east side of U.S. 70. Westbound motorists will follow the same detour in reverse.
This closure will allow crews to drive piles as part of the construction of the new U.S. 70 bridge over Holloway Street.
The closures are weather dependent and subject to change.
Drivers should pay extra attention and allow extra time to navigate the detour.
This work is associated with the East End Connector project which is estimated to be completed November 2020.
Quote from: LM117 on November 21, 2019, 10:23:57 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-holloway-st-nightly-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-holloway-st-nightly-closure.aspx)
QuoteDURHAM – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are set to close the section of Holloway Street that passes under U.S. 70 for four nights beginning tonight.
The nightly closures are scheduled from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m.
A signed detour will direct eastbound drivers onto Miami Boulevard, Geer Street, Cheek Road and Hoover Road to get back to Holloway Street on the east side of U.S. 70. Westbound motorists will follow the same detour in reverse.
This closure will allow crews to drive piles as part of the construction of the new U.S. 70 bridge over Holloway Street.
The closures are weather dependent and subject to change.
Drivers should pay extra attention and allow extra time to navigate the detour.
This work is associated with the East End Connector project which is estimated to be completed November 2020.
The opening date keeps getting later and later. Originally they thought it could be open by late this year. Then May 2020, then June, and now November. If the opening is advanced back to summer again, they'll probably announce that the project was opened months early.
Southbound NC-147 traffic will be shifted to it's final traffic pattern this Sunday.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-nc-147-southbound-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-nc-147-southbound-traffic-shift.aspx)
I drove through there the other day, and I saw one of the signs for south 885 was uncovered, was cool to see
also thank goodness they are separating the directions of travel for good. Driving through there on a bumpy twisty 4 lane undivided 55 mph road was quite nerve-wracking.
Some news regarding the I-885 designation and what will become of NC-147:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566 (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566)
I've said this many times before in this thread and elsewhere. It is time for NCDOT to retire the NC147 designation entirely and sign US 70 over the EEC and the Durham Freeway through downtown. Eliminate US70 multiplexes in Durham except for 2 miles with I-85 (exit 170-172) and 1/2 mile with I-885 on the EEC itself.
Somehow people here haven't seemed to like this idea but to me it's just so obvious.
cant seem to find any problem with that. the logic is pretty sound. I like it.
Quote from: nerdom on December 17, 2019, 04:00:07 PM
cant seem to find any problem with that. the logic is pretty sound. I like it.
Same.
Quote from: LM117 on December 17, 2019, 01:46:09 PM
Some news regarding the I-885 designation and what will become of NC-147:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566 (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566)
I'm pleased that NC 147 will be truncated at I-885, eliminating a useless concurrence.
The idea of routing US 70 over the remaining NC 147 Durham Freeway route is the kind of thing that appeals to road geeks like those of us in the forum, but I doubt that it would be popular in Durham. The Durham Freeway inside Durham is old, probably limited to 4 lanes, and it has two rather sharp curves; it's not really an appropriate route for through traffic compared to the 8 lane plus I-85.
Are you saying that there might be a grassroots movement to keep things confusing and inconsistent in order to reduce through traffic? As you mention, I don't think the general public gives a flip about highway numbering. It seems to me that, pretty much universally, folks in Durham don't care - everyone would just say "oh" and go about their day. Signing it as US 70 would have basically zero impact on through traffic (in these days of Waze and Google Maps.) People *do* care about highway construction - new routes, widenings, upgrades, etc. For example, MacGregor Downs trying to get US64 in Cary/Apex re-designated as US64 business, and mainline US64 signed over NC540 and US1. But they were just trying to weaponize the numbering plan as a way to prevent a freeway upgrade - they didn't actually care about the numbering. I am unaware of any instance where there was a popular movement in response to a numbering plan alone. Might have happened, but if so, it's not common.
Although, this is NC after all, so upgrading a route's designation is a big thing for economic development types. So I suppose there could be backlash, but I just haven't heard of it.
It's going to be very fun getting these changes on Wikipedia and OSM... It does answer some questions raised by the signs that have already been put up, though, explaining why I-885's mileage-based exits were changed to start at NC 540 and especially why Briggs Avenue is now Exit 1 on NC 147, shown in this image from MalmeRoads:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj819qw.jpg&hash=90be6b270b71527ce9eb7db41fd947cf537f771c)
I hope that obviously last-minute-changed exit tab isn't indicative of the would-be NC 147 shields south of the connector...
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 17, 2019, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: LM117 on December 17, 2019, 01:46:09 PM
Some news regarding the I-885 designation and what will become of NC-147:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566 (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1703414-durham-east-end-connector-7.html#post56883566)
I'm pleased that NC 147 will be truncated at I-885, eliminating a useless concurrence.
The idea of routing US 70 over the remaining NC 147 Durham Freeway route is the kind of thing that appeals to road geeks like those of us in the forum, but I doubt that it would be popular in Durham. The Durham Freeway inside Durham is old, probably limited to 4 lanes, and it has two rather sharp curves; it's not really an appropriate route for through traffic compared to the 8 lane plus I-85.
Yes, guess this means the 'Exit 1' tab for the new sign for put up for Briggs Avenue was not a mistake, and that all the exits on NC 147 will be renumbered. If the new exit numbers will be the current ones - 9, then:
Briggs Ave (10) Exit 1
NC 55/Allston Ave (11) Exit 2
Fayetteville St (12A) Exit 3A
Bus. 15/501 Downtown (12B) Exit 3B
Duke St (NB) (12C) Exit 3C
Chapel Hill St (13) Exit 4
Swift Ave/Duke East Campus (14) Exit 5
Elba St/Trent Dr (NB) (15A) Exit 6A
Hillandale Rd/Fulton St (15B) Exit 6B
US 15/501 Chapel Hill (16A/B) Exit 7A/B
As much as I hate to admit it, shortening NC 147 to make room for I-885 is definitely the right move.
I contacted NCDOT for some clarification, and someone got back very quickly and even sent me the latest revised signing plans. They don't feature all the changes, namely the Triangle Expressway signing changes and NC 147 remileposting/exit renumbering. The Triangle Expressway signage apparently is still being coordinated with the NCTA, and the NC 147 exit renumbering might be let as a separate contract. There is, however, one instance of an NC 885 shield in these latest plans:
(https://i.imgur.com/GIcxIgQ.png)
This one is probably only here because it's an advance sign on I-40 for both exits. Everywhere else, signs for the Durham Freeway and Triangle Expressway are separate, and only the Durham Freeway signage is modified in these plans.
(https://i.imgur.com/00ipg2I.png)
All other signs on I-40 are only for north I-885, with NC 147 relegated to "To" since it's not going to be concurrent with 885.
(https://i.imgur.com/Bgd0ARa.png)
This one replaces a nearly identical one (just changing NC 147 to I-885) on northbound 147. It may be a holdover from the original version of the plan, though the original signing plan sheets didn't go this far down 147. Either way, this should eventually read "NC 885 Toll / Toll Road Ends."
Some other things of note:
- As I already mentioned, the plans don't include renumbering all of NC 147's exits, just Briggs Avenue. As we've already seen, it's Exit 1 northbound. Southbound, however, 10B and 10A become Exit 1C (speculation, not shown) and 1B, with 1A being the southbound exit flyover to the connector. The roadway merging onto southbound I-885 has no exit number for it. (EDIT: Has the Exit 1B signage for Briggs Avenue on NC 147 southbound been installed yet?)
- The mismatch of Exit 4/Exit 5/Exit 6B at each end of the connector is no more. The NC 147, US 70, and NC 98/US 70 Business exits are now Exit 9, Exit 10, and Exit 11, respectively.
- Though none of the Triangle Expressway signage is modified in these plans (except for the one mentioned above), I imagine that nothing more needs to be done than simply slapping NC 885 shields over the NC 147 shields and "To I-885" shields over the "To NC 147" shields. (Existing signage at the 147/540 interchange treats regular/toll NC 147 and regular/toll NC 540 as separate routes for some reason.)
Will 885 replace 147?
What number would this be? I think it should be something other than 147 because it looks kind of funny in my opinion. Let's maybe call it an I-185 or something.
http://prntscr.com/qcssdg
Quote from: orulz on December 17, 2019, 09:41:59 PM
Are you saying that there might be a grassroots movement to keep things confusing and inconsistent in order to reduce through traffic? As you mention, I don't think the general public gives a flip about highway numbering. It seems to me that, pretty much universally, folks in Durham don't care - everyone would just say "oh" and go about their day. Signing it as US 70 would have basically zero impact on through traffic (in these days of Waze and Google Maps.) People *do* care about highway construction - new routes, widenings, upgrades, etc. For example, MacGregor Downs trying to get US64 in Cary/Apex re-designated as US64 business, and mainline US64 signed over NC540 and US1. But they were just trying to weaponize the numbering plan as a way to prevent a freeway upgrade - they didn't actually care about the numbering. I am unaware of any instance where there was a popular movement in response to a numbering plan alone. Might have happened, but if so, it's not common.
Although, this is NC after all, so upgrading a route's designation is a big thing for economic development types. So I suppose there could be backlash, but I just haven't heard of it.
I'm not saying that rerouting US 70 is a bad idea, only that I don't think it will happen. (And by the way there's nothing "confusing and inconsistent" about leaving US 70 where it is.)
The public does have opinions on road numbering in some cases. The public despised the "Inner" and "Outer" designations on I-440 and got that signage eliminated. There's was also some grumbling about the quick changes east of Raleigh, US 64 to I-495 and then to I-87.
To argue for the rerouting, you need a reason other than "let's be tidy and eliminate a concurrence." That's not going to sell with NCDOT, IMO. I think the reason would have to be, "Let's bring US 70 through downtown Durham to help drivers reach downtown easily." Maybe that would sell, but I remain doubtful.
The ramp from Briggs Avenue to NC-147 South will close for 30 days.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-06-briggs-avenue-durham-freeway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-06-briggs-avenue-durham-freeway-ramp-closure.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on January 06, 2020, 05:25:11 PM
The ramp from Briggs Avenue to NC-147 South will close for 30 days.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-06-briggs-avenue-durham-freeway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-06-briggs-avenue-durham-freeway-ramp-closure.aspx)
An update on that press release says that the closure has been postponed.
So Interstate 885 overhead signage has been installed and covered up, even though 885 has not been officially approved. I guess the 885 designation is a go, with or without approval.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:07:07 PM
So Interstate 885 overhead signage has been installed and covered up, even though 885 has not been officially approved. I guess the 885 designation is a go, with or without approval.
From what I was told, FHWA doesn't seem to have a problem with it. It's just a matter of getting AASHTO to approve the number, which will most likely happen during their spring meeting.
Quote from: LM117 on January 09, 2020, 07:48:08 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 08, 2020, 06:07:07 PM
So Interstate 885 overhead signage has been installed and covered up, even though 885 has not been officially approved. I guess the 885 designation is a go, with or without approval.
From what I was told, FHWA doesn't seem to have a problem with it. It's just a matter of getting AASHTO to approve the number, which will most likely happen during their spring meeting.
This year's spring meeting will be in Kansas City from May 26 to 29.
While the signs for Future I-885 interchange with NC 147 North are covered over, those on the one overhead gantry that has been put up for the Future I-885 South exit with US 70 East at the other end of the project are not. Here's the uncovered I-885 shield on that sign, courtesy of David Johnson:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj120vw.jpg&hash=91cac03c8fbe74de3be9d0c327a894cce51e89c7)
More new photos of construction of the East End Connector are at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
On Wikipedia, it says that NC 147/future NC 885 will be extended to connect with McCrimmon Parkway. Is this accurate, and if so, is there a date set for its construction?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 28, 2020, 04:47:25 PM
On Wikipedia, it says that NC 147/future NC 885 will be extended to connect with McCrimmon Parkway. Is this accurate, and if so, is there a date set for its construction?
That extension has not been in any STIP for years now. Wikipedia calls it a "proposed future project".
Quote from: dfilpus on January 28, 2020, 05:23:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 28, 2020, 04:47:25 PM
On Wikipedia, it says that NC 147/future NC 885 will be extended to connect with McCrimmon Parkway. Is this accurate, and if so, is there a date set for its construction?
That extension has not been in any STIP for years now. Wikipedia calls it a "proposed future project".
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc-147-extension/Pages/default.aspx
Funded for construction in 2027 in the 2020 - 2029 STIP.
They don't have a clearly determined route for the extension yet. Original plans had it connecting directly to Town Hall Drive but Morrisville doesn't want that anymore.
Here's my suggestion: Connect Little Drive to Town Hall Drive, connect 147 directly to Davis (with a southbound flyover), and add a half diamond interchange between 147 and Little Drive.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=14bKq_IF4U-bnCf80PqjjPrZGrAupFpkX
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-05-nc-147-southbound-lane-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-05-nc-147-southbound-lane-closure.aspx)
QuoteDURHAM – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are set to close the inside southbound lane of N.C. 147 (Durham Freeway) from Alston Avenue to Ellis Road this weekend as part of the East End Connector project.
This closure, from Friday at 9 p.m. until Monday at 5 a.m., is required to complete rehabilitation of the bridge over the CSX railroad and associated roadway work.
The work is weather dependent and subject to change.
Drivers should pay extra attention and allow extra time to navigate the work zone.
NCDOT announces again that it will be closing the Briggs Ave. ramp to NC 147 South for a month as part of the final phase of East End Connector construction along the Durham Freeway:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-briggs-ave-ramp-southbound-nc-147-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-briggs-ave-ramp-southbound-nc-147-closure.aspx)
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-01-nc-147-southbound-lane-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-01-nc-147-southbound-lane-closure.aspx)
QuoteDURHAM – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are set to close one of the two southbound lanes of N.C. 147 (Durham Freeway) from Alston Avenue (Exit 11) to Ellis Road (Exit 8) as part of the East End Connector project.
This closure, from Thursday at 9 a.m. until Monday at 7 a.m., is required to complete rehabilitation of the bridge over the CSX railroad.
Crews will first close the inside lane, then switch to the outside lane to complete temporary lane striping. This temporary striping pattern will shift traffic to the inside shoulder to allow the contractor to complete work on the bridge behind a concrete barrier.
The work is weather dependent and subject to change.
Drivers should pay attention throughout the work zone and anticipate the closure may cause slight travel delays.
Meanwhile, taking advantage of the lane closure for the above project, contractors have installed the first advance overhead sign for the I-885/East End Connector interchange on NC 147 South, seen here captured by the Briggs Avenue traffic camera:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fnc147briggsave4120.jpg&hash=4d8581950cb4e6a7b7e5b6fe633078e737187f6c)
Thanks to David Johnson, I now have a closeup photo of the sign in the traffic camera image above:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj420cw.jpg&hash=4996d3579679963840eb549b7011ce81f88e9840)
The layout of the shields seen on the left side, I-885 on the left, and what can be seen of an I-40 shield on the right, implies another shield in the center. This was the case for the original sign plan when NC 147 was to continue along I-885 South. Did the contractor install an outdated sign? This theory is bolstered by the number in the exit tab, 9. That was the exit number in the original plan, but was changed to 1A in the new sign plans I've seen.
Other new photos taken at the East End Connector interchange on NC 147 South are at:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Quote from: bob7374 on April 03, 2020, 03:38:03 PM
Thanks to David Johnson, I now have a closeup photo of the sign in the traffic camera image above:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj420cw.jpg&hash=4996d3579679963840eb549b7011ce81f88e9840)
The layout of the shields seen on the left side, I-885 on the left, and what can be seen of an I-40 shield on the right, implies another shield in the center. This was the case for the original sign plan when NC 147 was to continue along I-885 South. Did the contractor install an outdated sign? This theory is bolstered by the number in the exit tab, 9. That was the exit number in the original plan, but was changed to 1A in the new sign plans I've seen.
Other new photos taken at the East End Connector interchange on NC 147 South are at:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
I really hope they didn't just go the slap-blank-overlays-on-fabricated-signs route for the NC 147 changes...
Does anyone have any info on when I-885 might be open? I believe the contract estimated completion date is in October, so perhaps the road could open sometime this summer. I haven't seen anything in the local press about this.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 18, 2020, 06:48:45 PM
Does anyone have any info on when I-885 might be open? I believe the contract estimated completion date is in October, so perhaps the road could open sometime this summer. I haven't seen anything in the local press about this.
Haven't heard anything in the press either. The NCDOT project website says the road will be open at the same time the project is completed, November 2020. That would be unusual, as you've suggested, typically a road can open up to several months before the project is over.
One thing to be on the lookout for is the next AASHTO US Route numbering Committee applications report. The committee's planned meeting at the AASHTO Spring Meeting on May 26 has, no surprise, been canceled. According to the Committee website, they are planning a virtual meeting sometime this month to approve submitted applications. If I-885 is on the applications list, NCDOT could be planning to open the route prior to November. If not, a November or later opening should be expected. NCDOT apparently already has FHWA approval for an interstate designation, AASHTO then needs to officially approve the number which I guess the agency assumes will happen without any problems.
I've tweeted NCDOT in regards to the opening dates for both the I-885 East End Connector and the first segment of the I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway. I'll post back here once I get a response.
inb4 NCDOT just signs I-885 and waits years to actually apply for it
Yep, signs are mostly up with the Interstate shields. Cannot see why it would not be approved but, as far as status, no striping has been on the ramps leading from NC 147, aka Future I-885, so they are definitely behind schedule, drove it on Saturday the 16th. With NCDOT furloughing personnel, don't see it being opened prior to November, unfortunately.
Quote from: goobnav on May 19, 2020, 10:24:27 AM
Yep, signs are mostly up with the Interstate shields. Cannot see why it would not be approved but, as far as status, no striping has been on the ramps leading from NC 147, aka Future I-885, so they are definitely behind schedule, drove it on Saturday the 16th. With NCDOT furloughing personnel, don't see it being opened prior to November, unfortunately.
Thanks to David Johnson, have photos of some of the newer I-885 signage. Along NC 147 South, unlike the previously placed 1/4 mile advance sign with the wrong exit number, the two new signs (1/2 mile advance and exit ramp) appear to have the numbering right. Here's the new sign at the ramp with the uncovered exit number 1A:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj520dw.jpg&hash=b06b7bd0bf39f52275e6ecc1aa69f21e7b084a96)
It appears the major holdup in completing the Connector is along US 70 where the future I-885 South lanes are still being constructed. This can be seen along with other sign photos at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2020, 10:31:28 PM
I've tweeted NCDOT in regards to the opening dates for both the I-885 East End Connector and the first segment of the I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway. I'll post back here once I get a response.
According to NCDOT, the East End Connector is still projected to be open to traffic by the end of the year.
https://twitter.com/ncdot_triangle/status/1262788783436685312
Looks like they are finally getting around to completing the work on NC 147 North for the East End Connector Project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-nc-147-north-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-nc-147-north-traffic-shift.aspx)
Quote from: bob7374 on May 19, 2020, 12:28:04 PM
Quote from: goobnav on May 19, 2020, 10:24:27 AM
Yep, signs are mostly up with the Interstate shields. Cannot see why it would not be approved but, as far as status, no striping has been on the ramps leading from NC 147, aka Future I-885, so they are definitely behind schedule, drove it on Saturday the 16th. With NCDOT furloughing personnel, don't see it being opened prior to November, unfortunately.
Thanks to David Johnson, have photos of some of the newer I-885 signage. Along NC 147 South, unlike the previously placed 1/4 mile advance sign with the wrong exit number, the two new signs (1/2 mile advance and exit ramp) appear to have the numbering right. Here's the new sign at the ramp with the uncovered exit number 1A:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.malmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Ffut885dj520dw.jpg&hash=b06b7bd0bf39f52275e6ecc1aa69f21e7b084a96)
It appears the major holdup in completing the Connector is along US 70 where the future I-885 South lanes are still being constructed. This can be seen along with other sign photos at: http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html
NCDOT has a weird habit of placing supplementary sign tabs in between the exit tab and the main sign. :-/
Upcoming nightly closures on NC-98.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-us-70-bridge-over-nc-98.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-us-70-bridge-over-nc-98.aspx)
NCDOT press release regarding closures relating to work to complete the new US 70 East (Future I-885 South) bridge over NC 98 in Durham. According to the project timetable, this work is to be completed by July 9, so close to being on schedule, the text also says the Connector is still on schedule to open by the end of the year:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-30-us-70-overhang-nc-98-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-30-us-70-overhang-nc-98-closure.aspx)
Part of Herbert Street will be permanently closed Friday.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-12-herbert-st-permanent-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-12-herbert-st-permanent-closure.aspx)
According to an NCDOT employee on City-Data forum (TrafficSys), it looks like the connector won't open until next spring.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html)
QuoteIt will likely be the spring - just learned that yesterday. Yes, been very quiet about it. I drove the US 70 part today and there's a lot of ramp work to do. Hopefully it'll be a mild winter and they can finish the work.
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 05:15:53 PM
According to an NCDOT employee on City-Data forum (TrafficSys), it looks like the connector won't open until next spring.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html)
QuoteIt will likely be the spring - just learned that yesterday. Yes, been very quiet about it. I drove the US 70 part today and there's a lot of ramp work to do. Hopefully it'll be a mild winter and they can finish the work.
Arrgh. Durham has waited half a century for this road and it just keeps receding into the future.
"What do we want?" "INTERSTATE 885 OPEN!" "When do we want it?" "NOW!"
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2020, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 05:15:53 PM
According to an NCDOT employee on City-Data forum (TrafficSys), it looks like the connector won't open until next spring.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html)
QuoteIt will likely be the spring - just learned that yesterday. Yes, been very quiet about it. I drove the US 70 part today and there's a lot of ramp work to do. Hopefully it'll be a mild winter and they can finish the work.
Arrgh. Durham has waited half a century for this road and it just keeps receding into the future.
And they're going to truncate NC 147, completely replacing it with I-885 (and NC 885 on the Triangle Expressway), yet I don't think there's been a peep from NCDOT about this in the press releases. I would think they would want to publicize this well in advance. All they've mentioned is the original plan to just create I-885 concurrent with 147.
Quote from: Roadsguy on October 09, 2020, 10:50:01 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2020, 06:11:43 PM
Quote from: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 05:15:53 PM
According to an NCDOT employee on City-Data forum (TrafficSys), it looks like the connector won't open until next spring.
https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html (https://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/3149412-ncdot-delays-most-upcoming-projects-8.html)
QuoteIt will likely be the spring - just learned that yesterday. Yes, been very quiet about it. I drove the US 70 part today and there's a lot of ramp work to do. Hopefully it'll be a mild winter and they can finish the work.
Arrgh. Durham has waited half a century for this road and it just keeps receding into the future.
And they're going to truncate NC 147, completely replacing it with I-885 (and NC 885 on the Triangle Expressway), yet I don't think there's been a peep from NCDOT about this in the press releases. I would think they would want to publicize this well in advance. All they've mentioned is the original plan to just create I-885 concurrent with 147.
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
I guess they could to completely eliminate NC 147, but they would need permission from AASHTO to make that move.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 10, 2020, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
I guess they could to completely eliminate NC 147, but they would need permission from AASHTO to make that move.
Why do they need AASHTO permission for changes to a state route? Is there something I am missing and this is a special case?
Quote from: mvak36 on October 10, 2020, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 10, 2020, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
I guess they could to completely eliminate NC 147, but they would need permission from AASHTO to make that move.
Why do they need AASHTO permission for changes to a state route? Is there something I am missing and this is a special case?
^ Permission from the AASHTO to re-route US-70.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2020, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 10, 2020, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 10, 2020, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
I guess they could to completely eliminate NC 147, but they would need permission from AASHTO to make that move.
Why do they need AASHTO permission for changes to a state route? Is there something I am missing and this is a special case?
^ Permission from the AASHTO to re-route US-70.
Changes to the route of US 70 aside, it will be interesting to see if NCDOT has applied for I-885 at this fall's meeting to be held online in November (the approvals from the spring meeting have still not been added to the past meetings decision page) or they will wait again now that the East End Connector roadway will not open until next spring.
Quote from: bob7374 on October 10, 2020, 05:36:03 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2020, 01:05:03 PM
Quote from: mvak36 on October 10, 2020, 12:59:35 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 10, 2020, 11:25:55 AM
Quote from: LM117 on October 10, 2020, 07:37:24 AM
I'm glad they're truncating NC-147, though I don't understand why they don't just go ahead and move US-70 to NC-147's alignment through downtown.
I guess they could to completely eliminate NC 147, but they would need permission from AASHTO to make that move.
Why do they need AASHTO permission for changes to a state route? Is there something I am missing and this is a special case?
^ Permission from the AASHTO to re-route US-70.
Changes to the route of US 70 aside, it will be interesting to see if NCDOT has applied for I-885 at this fall's meeting to be held online in November (it appears there was no meeting in the spring, the notice for the fall meeting was put up on the Committee website, but nothing was added to the past meetings decision page) or they will wait again now that the East End Connector roadway will not open until next spring.
Here are the results from the Spring meeting (not sure why they haven't posted on their site either): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27090.msg2535420#msg2535420
Hopefully they will apply for the designation in the fall meeting so that they can have it ready to go next spring (or whenever they complete construction).
The ramp from Briggs Avenue to NC-147 South will be closed this weekend.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-15-briggs-ave-nc-147-south-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-15-briggs-ave-nc-147-south-ramp-closure.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on October 15, 2020, 02:35:45 PM
The ramp from Briggs Avenue to NC-147 South will be closed this weekend.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-15-briggs-ave-nc-147-south-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-15-briggs-ave-nc-147-south-ramp-closure.aspx)
I checked out the NCDOT East End Connector project page linked to the press release. The official date of opening for traffic on the Connector is now June 2021. Work on NC 147 which was originally to be completed during the summer of 2019, then this past spring, is now listed with a November 2020 date, as the work on the Briggs Avenue ramp makes clear, work isn't complete there either. The NCDOT Construction Progress Report (which still says the project will be completed in January) says the project was 92.2% complete at the end of September.
Traffic on US-70 East will be shifted to it's final pattern tonight.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-23-us-70-east-traffic-shift-durham.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-23-us-70-east-traffic-shift-durham.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on October 23, 2020, 12:33:23 PM
Traffic on US-70 East will be shifted to it's final pattern tonight.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-23-us-70-east-traffic-shift-durham.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-23-us-70-east-traffic-shift-durham.aspx)
Finally! I drive that section frequently and the 4-lane undivided bit they've had going on for the last couple years is super sketch.
I've posted photos site contributor David Johnson took of the newly opened US 70 East (Future I-885 South) lanes and new signage put up along US 70 for the East End Connector project at: http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
^^^^
I've always found it mildly interesting that North Carolina's signs listing Petersburg don't say "Petersburg, Va." If it were a reference to Richmond or Atlanta, I'd certainly understand not clarifying, but Petersburg doesn't seem like all that significant or well-known of a place (or unique of a name) and I'd expect most state DOTs to include the state abbreviation for a place like that when it's in another state.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2020, 08:45:23 AM
^^^^
I've always found it mildly interesting that North Carolina's signs listing Petersburg don't say "Petersburg, Va." If it were a reference to Richmond or Atlanta, I'd certainly understand not clarifying, but Petersburg doesn't seem like all that significant or well-known of a place (or unique of a name) and I'd expect most state DOTs to include the state abbreviation for a place like that when it's in another state.
Petersburg is where I-85 meets and ends at I-95. Yeah, even though it is not a big city, I do consider it significant.
Quote from: Strider on October 30, 2020, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2020, 08:45:23 AM
^^^^
I've always found it mildly interesting that North Carolina's signs listing Petersburg don't say "Petersburg, Va." If it were a reference to Richmond or Atlanta, I'd certainly understand not clarifying, but Petersburg doesn't seem like all that significant or well-known of a place (or unique of a name) and I'd expect most state DOTs to include the state abbreviation for a place like that when it's in another state.
Petersburg is where I-85 meets and ends at I-95. Yeah, even though it is not a big city, I do consider it significant.
Right, but does it have any real (recent) historical significance other than as an Interstate control city? ("Recent" denoting that of course there was fighting there during the War Between the States.)
^
Richmond would be a better control city IMO, even if it doesn't go directly to Richmond.
VDOT uses Petersburg as a northbound control city as well.
I-295 uses Charlottesville, Williamsburg, Norfolk, and Va Beach as control cities despite I-95 not going to any of those places, but it does connect to I-64 which does.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 11:05:26 AM
^
Richmond would be a better control city IMO, even if it doesn't go directly to Richmond.
VDOT uses Petersburg as a northbound control city as well.
....
Right, but it's understandable why VDOT wouldn't post it as "Petersburg, Va.," which is what I was commenting on in reply #201 (NCDOT not using the "Va." following that particular city's name). There is in fact a Petersburg in North Carolina, but it's in the far western part of the state and is a tiny place, such that no reasonable person would be likely to confuse it with one in Virginia, but I still find the omission of the state slightly odd in this particular case.
^
Then there's cases like "Chesapeake, VA" on US-17 near Elizabeth City, where there's no Chesapeake in North Carolina.
Contrary, "Elizabeth City" is signed in Hampton Roads without "NC" despite presence of Elizabeth River (which US-17 crosses), former Elizabeth City County which merged into Hampton in the 1950s, etc.
I was thinking maybe the standard was to include the out-of-state name if your state has a prominent city of the same name.
Virginia appears to do this with Rocky Mount NC but not Durham and in a reverse version, Washington VA to differentiate DC.
I was expecting to find the proof at the US 25 split from I-26 in Hendersonville NC. The control city is Greenville, but no SC.
Then I poked around trying to find ANY example in NC of putting the out-of-state state abbreviation and haven't found one yet. Maybe they would only do it if they had duplicative place names very close to each other (such as is the case with I-85 in Gaffney SC signing Boiling Springs NC because not far away there is an exit for Boiling Springs SC; there is no North Carolina road pointing to the SC one because it is way too close to Spartanburg for that to be necessary).
So maybe NC just doesn't ever do it.
Quote from: Mapmikey on October 30, 2020, 02:39:31 PM
Then I poked around trying to find ANY example in NC of putting the out-of-state state abbreviation and haven't found one yet. Maybe they would only do it if they had duplicative place names very close to each other (such as is the case with I-85 in Gaffney SC signing Boiling Springs NC because not far away there is an exit for Boiling Springs SC; there is no North Carolina road pointing to the SC one because it is way too close to Spartanburg for that to be necessary).
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
^
Then there's cases like "Chesapeake, VA" on US-17 near Elizabeth City, where there's no Chesapeake in North Carolina.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2498751,-76.3180648,3a,47.3y,70.65h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sazsm7pI5B902zdug5jJb8A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Strider on October 30, 2020, 09:00:53 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 30, 2020, 08:45:23 AM
^^^^
I've always found it mildly interesting that North Carolina's signs listing Petersburg don't say "Petersburg, Va." If it were a reference to Richmond or Atlanta, I'd certainly understand not clarifying, but Petersburg doesn't seem like all that significant or well-known of a place (or unique of a name) and I'd expect most state DOTs to include the state abbreviation for a place like that when it's in another state.
Petersburg is where I-85 meets and ends at I-95. Yeah, even though it is not a big city, I do consider it significant.
Virginia prioritizes out of state control cities more than they should. It seems to undermine the State as a destination itself.
Leaving D.C you see Richmond, then it's Miami, Durham, Atlanta and Rocky Mount NC. The NC is of course, because "Rocky Mount" isn't big or well known to stand on its own. But just mentioning NC in the middle of VA seems to give it more prominence.
Now about NC, long ago they used to mention cities outside of the state more often and close to the borders, but sometime after the 80s the state became so full of itself, that they would list the last tiny town within the borders rather than acknowledge that life existed elsewhere.
i was surprised by the Petersburg mention on Northbound I-85 as Henderson is what you'd expect from NCDOT since you're not right at the border.
But Petersburg is the absolute correct control city because it's the end of I-85 which is a pretty important interstate and one of the nation's major industrial corridors.
if you were wondering about the state abbreviations, have you noticed that NCDOT never puts periods or apostrophes on signs?
"RDU Intl Airport". I like that they omit both of those, because they always look hokey when other states display them. It's nice and clean and internationally simple without.
Quote from: architect77 on November 20, 2020, 12:02:54 PM
Virginia prioritizes out of state control cities more than they should. It seems to undermine the State as a destination itself.
Leaving D.C you see Richmond, then it's Miami, Durham, Atlanta and Rocky Mount NC. The NC is of course, because "Rocky Mount" isn't big or well known to stand on its own. But just mentioning NC in the middle of VA seems to give it more prominence.
I don't view it as prioritizing "out of state control cities" , it's more of just simply listing the next largest city on the route. Should Virginia list Emporia or South Hill as control cities? No. Ay least Rocky Mount and Durham make more sense. Now granted, Rocky Mount should reasonably be Fayetteville, similar to how Richmond is a control city for northbound south of Rocky Mount.
I-64 west of I-81 is Charleston, not Clifton Forge, which makes sense. I-95 north of Richmond-Petersburg is Washington, not Fredericksburg, Stafford, Arlington, etc or some other Virginia city, again, which makes sense.
Quote from: sprjus4 on November 20, 2020, 12:16:00 PM
Quote from: architect77 on November 20, 2020, 12:02:54 PM
Virginia prioritizes out of state control cities more than they should. It seems to undermine the State as a destination itself.
Leaving D.C you see Richmond, then it's Miami, Durham, Atlanta and Rocky Mount NC. The NC is of course, because "Rocky Mount" isn't big or well known to stand on its own. But just mentioning NC in the middle of VA seems to give it more prominence.
I don't view it as prioritizing "out of state control cities" , it's more of just simply listing the next largest city on the route. Should Virginia list Emporia or South Hill as control cities? No. Ay least Rocky Mount and Durham make more sense. Now granted, Rocky Mount should reasonably be Fayetteville, similar to how Richmond is a control city for northbound south of Rocky Mount.
I-64 west of I-81 is Charleston, not Clifton Forge, which makes sense. I-95 north of Richmond-Petersburg is Washington, not Fredericksburg, Stafford, Arlington, etc or some other Virginia city, again, which makes sense.
Fredericksburg and Alexandria used to be control cities on I-95 between the two locations...
https://goo.gl/maps/wKNiVN1BjgSQuZ3D6
https://goo.gl/maps/E4kYoo4Er6vR3UxXA
https://goo.gl/maps/bsS9Qw6J1FKzaZTEA
From the other direction it is Richmond/Washington
.....and to underscore, my prior point was not whether Petersburg is the "right" control city, my point was simply that I found it odd that the signs in the Durham area refer to it merely as "Petersburg," and not "Petersburg, Va.," because I don't think it's a significant enough place in its own right that the average driver would see the word "Petersburg" and automatically think of a place in Virginia approximately 120 miles way.
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 20, 2020, 12:53:43 PM
Fredericksburg and Alexandria used to be control cities on I-95 between the two locations...
https://goo.gl/maps/wKNiVN1BjgSQuZ3D6
https://goo.gl/maps/E4kYoo4Er6vR3UxXA
https://goo.gl/maps/bsS9Qw6J1FKzaZTEA
From the other direction it is Richmond/Washington
I'd consider them more secondary control cities rather than primary. For long-distance traffic, the main points are Washington and Richmond.
Since I misunderstood the OP originally, here's a shot at Norfolk / Hampton Roads.
DE-1 South exit for US-13 in Dover, DE (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1662748,-75.4933485,3a,77.3y,190.5h,83.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spiaLldVkSWaWF_rMS2NfbQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) - 200 miles
I-85 North exit for US-58 in South Hill, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6975267,-78.1200448,3a,36.2y,25.23h,90.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sudPlBi8rH3YXBw9R1EMBZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) - 115 miles
I-64 East exit for I-295 (bypass) west of Richmond, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6657703,-77.6385535,3a,48.7y,130.55h,88.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMm9Vz2LOYW7PELDxcF_wMA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) - 107 miles
I-95 South exit for I-295 (bypass) north of Richmond, VA (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7081685,-77.4482788,3a,36.9y,184.45h,87.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMTElx9jAVUO6WgSPRzmnLQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) - 100 miles
The Briggs Avenue ramp to NC-147 South will be closed this weekend.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-briggs-ave-ramp-nc-147-south-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-briggs-ave-ramp-nc-147-south-closure.aspx)
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
.....and to underscore, my prior point was not whether Petersburg is the "right" control city, my point was simply that I found it odd that the signs in the Durham area refer to it merely as "Petersburg," and not "Petersburg, Va.," because I don't think it's a significant enough place in its own right that the average driver would see the word "Petersburg" and automatically think of a place in Virginia approximately 120 miles way.
I think it should be Richmond. But then, I grew up in Richmond.
Quote from: LM117 on November 20, 2020, 02:46:45 PM
The Briggs Avenue ramp to NC-147 South will be closed this weekend.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-briggs-ave-ramp-nc-147-south-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-briggs-ave-ramp-nc-147-south-closure.aspx)
This is hopefully the final project that will complete the NC 147 segment of the East End Connector work. The project site says all NC 147 work is to be completed this month. That site also says the Connector won't open until June, despite it being 93% complete and that the Construction Progress Report says the work will be completed on January 20, 2021.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 30, 2020, 02:11:58 PM
^
Then there's cases like "Chesapeake, VA" on US-17 near Elizabeth City, where there's no Chesapeake in North Carolina.
Contrary, "Elizabeth City" is signed in Hampton Roads without "NC" despite presence of Elizabeth River (which US-17 crosses), former Elizabeth City County which merged into Hampton in the 1950s, etc.
The VA Tidewater loves being associated with Northeastern NC. As far as scenery and beaches go, it's like shangria for them compared to to the concrete and boardwalk of Va. Beach.
Northeastern NC is a bonafide part of the Norfolk metro area region.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 20, 2020, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 20, 2020, 01:12:22 PM
.....and to underscore, my prior point was not whether Petersburg is the "right" control city, my point was simply that I found it odd that the signs in the Durham area refer to it merely as "Petersburg," and not "Petersburg, Va.," because I don't think it's a significant enough place in its own right that the average driver would see the word "Petersburg" and automatically think of a place in Virginia approximately 120 miles way.
I think it should be Richmond. But then, I grew up in Richmond.
Richmond's skyline appears on I-95 Northbound in a manner that is one of the nation's most dramatic of all. There's something about your car's elevation and Downtown Richmond's on a distant hill that couldn't be more perfect.
Then there's Richmond's uniform low-height buildings that emphasize breadth over height which I like. That's why I don't mind Raleigh's penchant for 17-20 floor towers, it's different from the rest of the world trying to be validated with tall towers.
Quote from: architect77 on November 21, 2020, 07:40:18 PM
Richmond's skyline appears on I-95 Northbound in a manner that is one of the nation's most dramatic of all. There's something about your car's elevation and Downtown Richmond's on a distant hill that couldn't be more perfect.
I honestly doubt it could top Pittsburgh's on I-376 when coming into town on the Parkway West. Can't see anything of Downtown till you pop thru the Fort Pitt Tunnel and there's the Downtown Skyline! Never gets old to me. :)
Quote from: architect77 on November 21, 2020, 07:28:04 PM
The VA Tidewater loves being associated with Northeastern NC. As far as scenery and beaches go, it's like shangria for them compared to to the concrete and boardwalk of Va. Beach.
Northeastern NC is a bonafide part of the Norfolk metro area region.
I'd definitely consider as far south as Elizabeth City apart of the greater metro / exurban area. Two major north-south 4 lane highways, US-17 and NC-VA-168, that have seen major improvements (limited access new location alignments) on the Virginia side in the past 2 decades, connecting to Norfolk, and in the future eventually an interstate highway (I-87) between Elizabeth City and Norfolk.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 21, 2020, 08:37:19 PM
Quote from: architect77 on November 21, 2020, 07:40:18 PM
Richmond's skyline appears on I-95 Northbound in a manner that is one of the nation's most dramatic of all. There's something about your car's elevation and Downtown Richmond's on a distant hill that couldn't be more perfect.
I honestly doubt it could top Pittsburgh's on I-376 when coming into town on the Parkway West. Can't see anything of Downtown till you pop thru the Fort Pitt Tunnel and there's the Downtown Skyline! Never gets old to me. :)
I've never been to Pittsburgh unfortunately, one of the handful that I haven't at least driven through.
On a much smaller scale and no longer dramatic due to bright lights of some businesses, I used to take all of my friends during college down Lake Wheeler Road at night and t downtown Raleigh. It was dark with thick trees on both sides of a small hill descending in elevation, and suddenly the trees on each side framed a city-looking skyline that was cropped to hide the ends.
Some yelled at the surprise of briefly seeing a cityscape for suburban little Raleigh. In the late 80s, the 21 story (now Duke Energy) white bldg. with vertical dark windows was the tallest. At that time Raleighites would have been fine if it didn't exist due to its unsafe reputation.
So you should head North and report what you think of Richmond when it appears up on a hill as to me what looks like another Northeastern city, and i'm a 10 yr New Yotk resident and 2 in Boston.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50639346236_4b28e554ff_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2k9PTou)ric (https://flic.kr/p/2k9PTou) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
Quote from: architect77 on November 21, 2020, 07:40:18 PM
Richmond's skyline appears on I-95 Northbound in a manner that is one of the nation's most dramatic of all. There's something about your car's elevation and Downtown Richmond's on a distant hill that couldn't be more perfect.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 21, 2020, 08:37:19 PM
I honestly doubt it could top Pittsburgh's on I-376 when coming into town on the Parkway West. Can't see anything of Downtown till you pop thru the Fort Pitt Tunnel and there's the Downtown Skyline! Never gets old to me. :)
Quote from: architect77 on November 23, 2020, 05:15:34 PM
I've never been to Pittsburgh unfortunately, one of the handful that I haven't at least driven through.
On a much smaller scale and no longer dramatic due to bright lights of some businesses, I used to take all of my friends during college down Lake Wheeler Road at night and t downtown Raleigh. It was dark with thick trees on both sides of a small hill descending in elevation, and suddenly the trees on each side framed a city-looking skyline that was cropped to hide the ends.
Some yelled at the surprise of briefly seeing a cityscape for suburban little Raleigh. In the late 80s, the 21 story (now Duke Energy) white bldg. with vertical dark windows was the tallest. At that time Raleighites would have been fine if it didn't exist due to its unsafe reputation.
So you should head North and report what you think of Richmond when it appears up on a hill as to me what looks like another Northeastern city, and i'm a 10 yr New Yotk resident and 2 in Boston.
While I love the Richmond skyline from ground level (and the I-95 bridge) perspective, but rickmastfan67 is absolutely right about the entrance into Pittsburgh. My first visit was back when my sister was a co-op working out in Carnegie and I detoured thru the Fort Pitt Tubes to see downtown. Little did I know that I would get work in the 'Burgh a few years later and would have an office in downtown a few years after that. If you love steel bridges, there is nothing better (although the view from coming out from the Mount Washington Tunnel on the light rail system is more imposing, being down closer to the river).
Getting back to I-885. A South I-885 reassurance marker has appeared on the Durham Freeway after the future East End Connector interchange and prior to the Ellis Road exit. A sign that was supposed to be covered over? Does this mean the AASHTO Fall Meeting approved the I-885 designation? A photo of the new sign, taken by Charles M. Kunz, is available at:
http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
Getting back to I-885. A South I-885 reassurance marker has appeared on the Durham Freeway after the future East End Connector interchange and prior to the Ellis Road exit. A sign that was supposed to be covered over? Does this mean the AASHTO Fall Meeting approved the I-885 designation? A photo of the new sign, taken by Charles M. Kunz, is available at:
http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (http://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
This was happening to me as well. Here is the answer to why. When I switched to a non-Chrome browser I can see my pics and yours...
Quote from: formulanone on November 24, 2020, 07:37:37 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on November 24, 2020, 06:26:29 AM
Does anyone know why some posters' photos no longer appear on posts (both old and new)?
Some browsers seem to have trouble with posting mixed content; since AARoads' forum uses "https" but if the site uses an insecure "http", then it appears as a broken link.
Oddly, this more of a problem with Chrome on a PC, but not Chrome on my phone. Probably a setting change is in order.
The Interstate 885 reassurance marker is a welcome sign. Even without an official designation approval from the "powers that be", Interstate 885 in North Carolina is a step closer to becoming reality.
I heard someone on this forum say arguing over NC control cities is akin to the NC BBQ debate. It couldn't be more true. At least NCDOT is consistent, Petersburg would be a control city within North Carolina too if it was in NC. Thank God for GPS.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
For non-Chrome users, here's the new I-885 reassurance marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmalmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi885southrmcmk112320w.jpg&hash=374d8993ae82043f2ed32e0781056881c6544763)
Right click on the image, then select "open image in new tap" if you are using Chrome. You can then see images posted in the thread.
So....does anyone know if the I-885 designation was approved by AASHTO?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 28, 2020, 06:11:50 PM
So....does anyone know if the I-885 designation was approved by AASHTO?
Whatever virtual meeting the SCORN (AASHTO's committee on US Route Numbering) had... no one seems to have any report of the outcomes. AASHTO's publication of committee votes had been getting worse already BEFORE the pandemic...
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
You all are hosting your photos on a site like flickr and just referencing the photos in this forum aren't you? If you were expecting this forum to hold the photos it would be quite a burden, and no wonder they had to stop allowing direct uploads.
That's probably a given and I sound stupid for even reminding of that.
Quote from: architect77 on December 01, 2020, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
You all are hosting your photos on a site like flickr and just referencing the photos in this forum aren't you? If you were expecting this forum to hold the photos it would be quite a burden, and no wonder they had to stop allowing direct uploads.
That's probably a given and I sound stupid for even reminding of that.
No, the issue here is that Chrome doesn't like 'http' images anymore. They have to be 'https' ones now, or they will no longer load them. bob7374's images in this thread are hosted on his own server at the moment.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on December 02, 2020, 12:34:10 AM
Quote from: architect77 on December 01, 2020, 10:32:07 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
You all are hosting your photos on a site like flickr and just referencing the photos in this forum aren't you? If you were expecting this forum to hold the photos it would be quite a burden, and no wonder they had to stop allowing direct uploads.
That's probably a given and I sound stupid for even reminding of that.
No, the issue here is that Chrome doesn't like 'http' images anymore. They have to be 'https' ones now, or they will no longer load them. bob7374's images in this thread are hosted on his own server at the moment.
Neither does Firefox, at least the beta versions. The fact is that unsecured http traffic is on its way out at this point, and Let's Encrypt makes it so trivial to get a valid SSL certificate that there is very little reason to not have your website served in an encrypted manner. Hell, even the cheaper website hosts make it super simple to do. I host a site on Dreamhost, all they do all the lifting. All I do is click a thing in the control panel and the website is served via https with a certificate from Let's Encrypt. Everyone should be doing this at this point.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 28, 2020, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
For non-Chrome users, here's the new I-885 reassurance marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmalmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi885southrmcmk112320w.jpg&hash=374d8993ae82043f2ed32e0781056881c6544763)
I am a chrome user and I can see this picture.
Quote from: kendancy66 on December 06, 2020, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 28, 2020, 10:56:37 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 25, 2020, 08:05:18 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2020, 10:00:35 PM
The Forum no longer lets me post photos directly in my posts (and has removed all the photos from my previous ones).
Not the forums fault. Some browsers themselves are getting really picky over images coming via http vs https.
And for the record, using Firefox 83 and can see all your previous images.
For non-Chrome users, here's the new I-885 reassurance marker:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmalmeroads.net%2Fncfutints%2Fi885southrmcmk112320w.jpg&hash=374d8993ae82043f2ed32e0781056881c6544763)
I am a chrome user and I can see this picture.
I took storm2k's advice and encrypted my domain, so my photos are visible to all again.
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Quote from: dfilpus on January 04, 2021, 10:04:16 AM
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Sounds like a serious screwup by the contractor...steel ordered for the railroad overpass proved inadequate so they had to back up and start over.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 04, 2021, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on January 04, 2021, 10:04:16 AM
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Sounds like a serious screwup by the contractor...steel ordered for the railroad overpass proved inadequate so they had to back up and start over.
There was no explanation in the article as to why the Connector between NC 147 and US 70 cannot be opened prior to the railroad work on US 70 being completed. Could it be since they put up all the I-885 signs, and the current railroad bridge is not up to Interstate standards, that they would rather just wait and not have to cover up those signs?
^
At that rate, it's no different than a work zone on an interstate highway with reduced lane widths, lane shifts, narrow shoulders, etc.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 04, 2021, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 04, 2021, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on January 04, 2021, 10:04:16 AM
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Sounds like a serious screwup by the contractor...steel ordered for the railroad overpass proved inadequate so they had to back up and start over.
There was no explanation in the article as to why the Connector between NC 147 and US 70 cannot be opened prior to the railroad work on US 70 being completed. Could it be since they put up all the I-885 signs, and the current railroad bridge is not up to Interstate standards, that they would rather just wait and not have to cover up those signs?
Just found a list of approved AASHTO US Route Number Committee results for Nov. 2020 (though not official). According to the list NCDOT did not apply for approval of I-885. The next meeting is probably in May. Could this be the real reason the Connector won't open until June?
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PMOn second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
Having driven that remainder of NC 147 and some of the entrance/exit ramps, I think that'll take a while.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 05, 2021, 12:02:42 PM
Just found a list of approved AASHTO US Route Number Committee results for Nov. 2020 (though not official). According to the list NCDOT did not apply for approval of I-885. The next meeting is probably in May. Could this be the real reason the Connector won't open until June?
Typically no. There are states that asked for AASHTO years later, like Arkansas, who finally started submitting them after their DOT head was on the board.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
NC 147 makes a rather sharp S-turn through downtown; it doesn't feel like an interstate.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
Are you proposing routing it over US 70 from the East End Connector to 540? What about the needed upgrades to 70 in the Briar Creek area?
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
Why not just reroute US 70 along Durham Freeway instead and simply eliminate NC 147 entirely. I don't see a need of another Interstate shield, it can be like US 421 through Winston-Salem.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 05, 2021, 09:45:37 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 05, 2021, 02:26:47 PM
I think they should keep the Interstate 885 signs up along the route, even if the route isn't approved. Or they could try to get the route approved as Interstate 685. On second thought, the 685 designation should be applied to the remainder of the NC 147 freeway, given that road is upgraded to Interstate Standards as well.
An East-West I-685 from the current start of the Durham Frwy to I-540 via the East End Connector makes sense. The upgrades to the on and off ramps would be substantial but if downtown Durham continues to grow, those upgrades will be needed anyway.
Why not just reroute US 70 along Durham Freeway instead and simply eliminate NC 147 entirely. I don't see a need of another Interstate shield, it can be like US 421 through Winston-Salem.
I'd be okay with that too, either way it would be nice to have a single route number along what will become a true east-west alternative to I-40 between Raleigh and Durham. I could see a variable message sign in Mebane or Efland advising motorists of travel times to RTP/RDU and Raleigh via either route.
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Good catch, I don't know how I overlooked that. Those two interchanges will complete the full conversion of US 70 to a freeway between I-885 and I-540.
Funny enough, Today I noticed an I-885 North/US 70 West post-mounted assembly appeared just before the railroad bridge. I was unable to get a picture but I will try next time I drive past it.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 05, 2021, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 04, 2021, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 04, 2021, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on January 04, 2021, 10:04:16 AM
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Sounds like a serious screwup by the contractor...steel ordered for the railroad overpass proved inadequate so they had to back up and start over.
There was no explanation in the article as to why the Connector between NC 147 and US 70 cannot be opened prior to the railroad work on US 70 being completed. Could it be since they put up all the I-885 signs, and the current railroad bridge is not up to Interstate standards, that they would rather just wait and not have to cover up those signs?
Just found a list of approved AASHTO US Route Number Committee results for Nov. 2020 (though not official). According to the list NCDOT did not apply for approval of I-885. The next meeting is probably in May. Could this be the real reason the Connector won't open until June?
Bob, did you find that unofficial results listing somewhere online that you could share that link? I've searched in vain...
Thanks in advance, David.
Quote from: sturmde on January 08, 2021, 04:20:40 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 05, 2021, 12:02:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 04, 2021, 11:10:46 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 04, 2021, 06:25:48 PM
Quote from: dfilpus on January 04, 2021, 10:04:16 AM
The opening has been delayed to June 2021, due to delays replacing railroad bridges over the new freeway.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article248194765.html
Sounds like a serious screwup by the contractor...steel ordered for the railroad overpass proved inadequate so they had to back up and start over.
There was no explanation in the article as to why the Connector between NC 147 and US 70 cannot be opened prior to the railroad work on US 70 being completed. Could it be since they put up all the I-885 signs, and the current railroad bridge is not up to Interstate standards, that they would rather just wait and not have to cover up those signs?
Just found a list of approved AASHTO US Route Number Committee results for Nov. 2020 (though not official). According to the list NCDOT did not apply for approval of I-885. The next meeting is probably in May. Could this be the real reason the Connector won't open until June?
Bob, did you find that unofficial results listing somewhere online that you could share that link? I've searched in vain...
Thanks in advance, David.
The link is here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes)
Quote from: fillup420 on January 07, 2021, 09:47:47 PM
Funny enough, Today I noticed an I-885 North/US 70 West post-mounted assembly appeared just before the railroad bridge. I was unable to get a picture but I will try next time I drive past it.
Here's a photo of the new sign assembly, courtesy of David Johnson:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885dj121b.jpg)
There's also another one further north beyond the Bus. 70/NC 98 exit. In this case the I-885 shield is partly covered:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885dj121c.jpg)
^^^^
I note the covered speed limit sign. Any idea what they expect it to be?
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 10, 2021, 05:07:05 PM
^^^^
I note the covered speed limit sign. Any idea what they expect it to be?
65 mph according to the signage plans, which is what all of I-885 will be posted at.
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1
So does this ramp really make this a 'freeway' design?
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 11, 2021, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1
So does this ramp really make this a 'freeway' design?
Why not? It's certainly not an optimal design, but still controlled-access and free-flowing, which are the two primary criteria for a road being considered a freeway.
Frankly, I'd be more worried about the extremely short weave section eastbound between Brier Creek and 540 than I would the curvature on the ramps referenced by tolbs17.
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 11:40:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 11, 2021, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1
So does this ramp really make this a 'freeway' design?
Why not? It's certainly not an optimal design, but still controlled-access and free-flowing, which are the two primary criteria for a road being considered a freeway.
Sharp curve ramps and theres traffic lights on the ramps.
Why not go back to the original alternative 2 idea where there was a trumpet interchange or alternative 1 which has more impacts, but has adequate LOS for the future.
Brier Creek has turned into such a cluster. Can't believe they're even entertaining alternatives 2 or 2 revised with the number of turns to/from TW Alexander. And ditto on short weaves eastbound to 540, noticed that too. I already see so many stupid decisions made there with the two-lane turn from Brier Creek to three lanes on Glenwood east, then the two-lane exit to 540.
Would love for 70 to be completely converted to freeway, but all of those projects have unfortunately been delayed like everything else. The Brier Creek project page still shows 2021, but think it's delayed until at least 2025 now.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 12, 2021, 03:32:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 11:40:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 11, 2021, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1
So does this ramp really make this a 'freeway' design?
Why not? It's certainly not an optimal design, but still controlled-access and free-flowing, which are the two primary criteria for a road being considered a freeway.
Sharp curve ramps and theres traffic lights on the ramps.
Why not go back to the original alternative 2 idea where there was a trumpet interchange or alternative 1 which has more impacts, but has adequate LOS for the future.
I don't see the trumpet interchange in Alternative 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-brier-creek-tw-alexander.pdf). You might be confusing it with the Aviation Parkway extension (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-aviation-extension.pdf)? The original Article 2 doesn't have any interchange at all at TW Alexander Dr, which I think is a very bad idea.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If I remember correctly US 70 goes up and down hills a lot. It's an old highway in that respect, and today they would cut through those highs for gentler inclines/declines.
That will prevent US70 from being a true freeway.
Drove past those new 885 shields today and they have been covered up completely.
Quote from: Evan_Th on January 13, 2021, 01:04:23 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 12, 2021, 03:32:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 11:40:49 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 11, 2021, 02:25:47 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on January 11, 2021, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 10, 2021, 07:32:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on January 05, 2021, 11:09:13 PM
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 05, 2021, 07:40:28 PM
Yes, I propose routing it over US 70. NCDOT plans to convert US 70 to a freeway just short of I-540 in the near future. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-durham-raleigh/Pages/default.aspx
Another project is planned that would convert that segment to I-540 with interchanges at Brier Creek Pkwy and TW Alexander Dr.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Pages/default.aspx
Is it really gonna be a 'freeway' though?
If the preliminary design diagrams are any indication, yes.
http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1
So does this ramp really make this a 'freeway' design?
Why not? It's certainly not an optimal design, but still controlled-access and free-flowing, which are the two primary criteria for a road being considered a freeway.
Sharp curve ramps and theres traffic lights on the ramps.
Why not go back to the original alternative 2 idea where there was a trumpet interchange or alternative 1 which has more impacts, but has adequate LOS for the future.
I don't see the trumpet interchange in Alternative 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-brier-creek-tw-alexander.pdf). You might be confusing it with the Aviation Parkway extension (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-aviation-extension.pdf)? The original Article 2 doesn't have any interchange at all at TW Alexander Dr, which I think is a very bad idea.
Alternative 2 IIRC did not have an interchange w T.W. Alexander, but did build a connector to the west with a trumpet interchange for access.
I think I still like alternative 1 the best, even though it has more impacts and is a true freeway design.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:57:10 PM
I think I still like alternative 1 the best, even though it has more impacts and is a true freeway design.
How is Alternative 2 -not- a true freeway design?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 14, 2021, 04:43:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:57:10 PM
I think I still like alternative 1 the best, even though it has more impacts and is a true freeway design.
How is Alternative 2 -not- a true freeway design?
Cause of this (http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1) ramp! Unless you're talking about the original alternative 2 and not the modified one.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 14, 2021, 04:43:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:57:10 PM
I think I still like alternative 1 the best, even though it has more impacts and is a true freeway design.
How is Alternative 2 -not- a true freeway design?
Cause of this (http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1) ramp! Unless you're talking about the original alternative 2 and not the modified one.
I was referring to the original design which would not include any interchange at T.W. Alexander Dr and a trumpet at Aviation Pkwy extended. I was not aware of this third "modified" alternative.
It appears that the NCDOT Preferred Alternative is this new modified alternative with a diverging diamond at Aviation Pkwy extended and a folded diamond at T.W. Alexander Dr... I would still personally prefer the original Alternative 2 though this works as well.
The RIRO ramp design does not downgrade it from being a freeway... US-70 would still have full control of access in the vicinity of that area, mainline traffic would not interrupted due to a traffic signal or crossover traffic, and the ramps would still have adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Do these examples of RIRO ramp designs downgrade these facilities from being freeways?
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4994107,-77.6847548,817m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5211838,-77.6923519,817m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4921612,-77.5648316,515m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4424167,-77.4504909,546m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5446537,-79.4415218,293m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1 (debatable, the ramps are much tighter than other examples and I believe VDOT has stated they will designate this portion "I-785" until a full interchange with an overpass bridge is constructed here - still VDOT posts 65 mph on this segment which is only permitted on limited access highways per state law)
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 14, 2021, 05:13:58 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 04:45:15 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 14, 2021, 04:43:21 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 03:57:10 PM
I think I still like alternative 1 the best, even though it has more impacts and is a true freeway design.
How is Alternative 2 -not- a true freeway design?
Cause of this (http://prntscr.com/wl8pi1) ramp! Unless you're talking about the original alternative 2 and not the modified one.
I was referring to the original design which would not include any interchange at T.W. Alexander Dr and a trumpet at Aviation Pkwy extended. I was not aware of this third "modified" alternative.
It appears that the NCDOT Preferred Alternative is this new modified alternative with a diverging diamond at Aviation Pkwy extended and a folded diamond at T.W. Alexander Dr... I would still personally prefer the original Alternative 2 though this works as well.
The RIRO ramp design does not downgrade it from being a freeway... US-70 would still have full control of access in the vicinity of that area, mainline traffic would not interrupted due to a traffic signal or crossover traffic, and the ramps would still have adequate acceleration and deceleration lanes.
Do these examples of RIRO ramp designs downgrade these facilities from being freeways?
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4994107,-77.6847548,817m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5211838,-77.6923519,817m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4921612,-77.5648316,515m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.4424167,-77.4504909,546m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5446537,-79.4415218,293m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1 (debatable, the ramps are much tighter than other examples and I believe VDOT has stated they will designate this portion "I-785" until a full interchange with an overpass bridge is constructed here - still VDOT posts 65 mph on this segment which is only permitted on limited access highways per state law)
All those documents, except for the last one are not as tight as the alternative 2 "modified" one. Idc if they go into a shopping center, the modified one just has very sharp ramps.
Quote from: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 05:28:41 PM
All those documents, except for the last one are not as tight as the alternative 2 "modified" one. Idc if they go into a shopping center, the modified one just has very sharp ramps.
... But it's still a true freeway design nonetheless.
The ramps will probably be signed at 20 or 25 mph when completed and have ample acceleration / deceleration lanes from mainline US-70.
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
Definitely a lot longer compared to the southwest bypass.
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 27, 2021, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
Definitely a lot longer compared to the southwest bypass.
Kind of hard to compare this project to a standard rural freeway project in Eastern North Carolina.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
This is ridiculous. Construction started in 2015, and by the time this opens, it would've taken over half a decade to build a short connector.
Quote from: LM117 on April 28, 2021, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
This is ridiculous. Construction started in 2015, and by the time this opens, it would've taken over half a decade to build a short connector.
Seriously. I drive past there most days, both sides, and there has been little to no work being done in the last few weeks. Some contractor must be getting paid nicely to drag their feet.
Quote from: fillup420 on April 28, 2021, 11:42:14 AM
Quote from: LM117 on April 28, 2021, 09:51:00 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
This is ridiculous. Construction started in 2015, and by the time this opens, it would've taken over half a decade to build a short connector.
Seriously. I drive past there most days, both sides, and there has been little to no work being done in the last few weeks. Some contractor must be getting paid nicely to drag their feet.
They are
LAZY!
I was reading about another new bridge under construction on the outer banks, and the coastal review website said that the contractor had stopped building adjacent roundabout or ramp to go work on higher priority projects elsewhere in the state.
So it's obvious that these contractors are being awarded multiple projects and can't work on all of them simultaneously.
I wonder if that's how NCDOT manages to afford so much new construction with mediocre amounts of annual funding.
Bulk discount rates by giving multiple projects to each of a handful of contractors.
It would explain a lot of the slow progress seen statewide.
Quote from: tolbs17 on April 28, 2021, 10:24:59 PMThey are LAZY!
Generally there's a reason for delays. Like earlier in the thread it was stated that the railroad bridge in this project was causing delays. They're not doing it out of laziness. Projects sometimes even have incentives to finish on time. Or they could have the opposite and have penalties for not finishing on time. So the contractor wouldn't be lazy because it would likely be costly.
Quote from: architect77 on April 28, 2021, 10:58:47 PM
I was reading about another new bridge under construction on the outer banks, and the coastal review website said that the contractor had stopped building adjacent roundabout or ramp to go work on higher priority projects elsewhere in the state.
So it's obvious that these contractors are being awarded multiple projects and can't work on all of them simultaneously.
That's up to the contractor. I would guess something like that the small project had a delay which could affect the larger project is what could have happened. The small project was expected to be finished before the large project started. But the delay changed that. The incentive on a large contract could be worth more than what's lost on a smaller project. So getting the large project done on time is better than losing out on both. That seems to be a risk of the business and bidding on multiple projects.
Quote from: architect77 on April 28, 2021, 10:58:47 PMI wonder if that's how NCDOT manages to afford so much new construction with mediocre amounts of annual funding.
Bulk discount rates by giving multiple projects to each of a handful of contractors.
It would explain a lot of the slow progress seen statewide.
AFAIK projects are bid separately. So I don't see how there would be a bulk rate.
Quote from: architect77 on April 28, 2021, 10:58:47 PM
Bulk discount rates by giving multiple projects to each of a handful of contractors.
Quote from: BrianP on April 29, 2021, 11:48:17 AM
AFAIK projects are bid separately. So I don't see how there would be a bulk rate.
In the rail transit industry, we also see the effect of "bunching" in contracting where contractors that have other projects piggyback costs off of new projects; sometimes this is even welcomed by the agencies. Low bid projects using Federal funding are still supposed to undergo a thorough financial and commercial review process before award, in addition to technical reviews. We evaluate whether contractors will have too much work on their plate to complete the project on schedule; we also review the financial capability of the contractor to undertake so much work. There's also the semi-technical side of whether the contractor can acquire enough equipment to handle all these projects.
All that aside, it does seem that most (if not all) of the highway projects in North Carolina are still suffering from the financial problems caused by the undervalue of real estate taken by eminent domain as a result of the court case Kirby v. NCDOT. I can't help but think the slowdowns are due to cash flow issues stemming from those financial losses. And that's another lawsuit waiting to happen, as it is not the contractors' problem that the NCDOT got hit with a big lawsuit.
I've added some recent photos taken of the railroad bridge over Future I-885 by Sean C. McManus showing progress (or lack thereof) in its construction to my Future I-885 page:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885scm421c.jpg)
Remainder of the photos at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
That would be consistent with how both VDOT and NCDOT currently have I-85 signed between Durham and Petersburg.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
That would be consistent with how both VDOT and NCDOT currently have I-85 signed between Durham and Petersburg.
Unless I-85 gets extended....
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
That would be consistent with how both VDOT and NCDOT currently have I-85 signed between Durham and Petersburg.
Unless I-85 gets extended....
This isn't Fictional Highways... it's never going to actually happen and VDOT has no plans for such an extension.
Quote from: fillup420 on January 30, 2021, 05:20:50 PM
Drove past those new 885 shields today and they have been covered up completely.
They are still covered up as of last week.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
Yes, probably because I-85 doesn't go all the way to Richmond.
My friend from Henderson is upset because it was on the original sign drawings but was replaced by Petersburg.
Quote from: architect77 on May 02, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
Yes, probably because I-85 doesn't go all the way to Richmond.
My friend from Henderson is upset because it was on the original sign drawings but was replaced by Petersburg.
Or reroute I-85 and have it directly go to Richmond.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 02, 2021, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: architect77 on May 02, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
Yes, probably because I-85 doesn't go all the way to Richmond.
My friend from Henderson is upset because it was on the original sign drawings but was replaced by Petersburg.
Or reroute I-85 and have it directly go to Richmond.
I think it's ok to name the city at the end of a quite significant Southeastern interstate.
On that subject, Virginia has so many far away control cities, it makes it seem like nothing in the state itself is a worthy destination.
Miami, Durham, Rocky Mount, NC, Washington, Atlanta....it's like VA is just a crossroads from the Northeast to the Southeast.
Quote from: bob7374 on April 29, 2021, 11:54:32 PM
I've added some recent photos taken of the railroad bridge over Future I-885 by Sean C. McManus showing progress (or lack thereof) in its construction to my Future I-885 page:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885scm421c.jpg)
Remainder of the photos at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
It looks pretty much done to me. However, they have been working on that retaining wall to the right for several weeks now. I have yet to see any trains go across to determine if the new bridge is in use yet.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 02, 2021, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: architect77 on May 02, 2021, 02:45:01 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 01, 2021, 11:30:06 AM
I see Petersburg is going to be I-85's north control city and not Richmond.
Yes, probably because I-85 doesn't go all the way to Richmond.
My friend from Henderson is upset because it was on the original sign drawings but was replaced by Petersburg.
Or reroute I-85 and have it directly go to Richmond.
Could someone please head down to Greenville and fix the broken record?
NCDOT uses Richmond as the northbound control city extensively on I-85. Petersburg only appears once you get into VA.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2021, 10:01:08 PM
NCDOT uses Richmond as the northbound control city extensively on I-85. Petersburg only appears once you get into VA.
Most signage is Petersburg... besides Richmond maybe on mileage signs, where else is it used at ramps or on overheads?
Pretty much all the northbound on-ramps from Henderson to the state line use Richmond, although recently replaced signs use Petersburg.
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2021, 10:01:08 PM
NCDOT uses Richmond as the northbound control city extensively on I-85. Petersburg only appears once you get into VA.
I contend that that there aren't any overhead signs at all in NC on I-85 mentioning Richmond. If there are a few they must be well North of Durham through Henderson or Warrenton and that rural stretch wouldn't be worthy of "extensive use."
Quote from: architect77 on May 04, 2021, 04:57:39 PM
Quote from: NJRoadfan on May 02, 2021, 10:01:08 PM
NCDOT uses Richmond as the northbound control city extensively on I-85. Petersburg only appears once you get into VA.
I contend that that there aren't any overhead signs at all in NC on I-85 mentioning Richmond. If there are a few they must be well North of Durham through Henderson or Warrenton and that rural stretch wouldn't be worthy of "extensive use."
Agree. I live right off I-85 and use it frequently between Durham and the VA line. There is hardly any mention of Richmond on the signs, almost all Petersburg.
Not sure what the proper term is for these signs, but I believe he's referring to the ones on the local roads prior to the interchange with I-85. These are all north of Henderson.
Example 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4291809,-78.2943701,3a,15.7y,339.69h,86.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfB48po-s5woiit3kth7ySA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544807,-78.2658315,3a,45.3y,175.02h,78.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Bt5SYm3ZPtyPQP86JxbzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4841536,-78.2308346,3a,75y,179.96h,76.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQsx7QBQCQHnaOu5K1rssIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5332932,-78.1899282,3a,19.4y,342.34h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm03dts9JqsBCFSUQ0qD53w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
EEC will likely open in September. Track work is scheduled to be complete in August for both CSX and NS sometime in August, plus you need to factor in demo of the old structure.
Sincerely,
Someone involved with the project
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 05, 2021, 08:45:08 AM
Not sure what the proper term is for these signs, but I believe he's referring to the ones on the local roads prior to the interchange with I-85. These are all north of Henderson.
Example 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4291809,-78.2943701,3a,15.7y,339.69h,86.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfB48po-s5woiit3kth7ySA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544807,-78.2658315,3a,45.3y,175.02h,78.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Bt5SYm3ZPtyPQP86JxbzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4841536,-78.2308346,3a,75y,179.96h,76.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQsx7QBQCQHnaOu5K1rssIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5332932,-78.1899282,3a,19.4y,342.34h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm03dts9JqsBCFSUQ0qD53w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Oh OK, shoulder signs. I was only thinking about large overheads on I-85 itself. I would place these shoulder signs in their own catergory of guidance since there are probably 50 roads at the border with Virginia. I don't see anyrhing woriong or inconsistent using different cities on these.
There are often so many relevant places that you need to not be repeating just one over and over.
I want it changed "TO I-95 NORTH" "Richmond, VA"
Who not add VA like they have on US-17 saying Chesapeake?
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:41:56 AM
I want it changed "TO I-95 NORTH" "Richmond, VA"
Who not add VA like they have on US-17 saying Chesapeake?
Should we also add "TO I-10 WEST" "New Orleans, LA"
I-85 ends at Petersburg, no need to identify beyond that.
Quote from: tolbs17 on May 07, 2021, 08:41:56 AM
I want it changed "TO I-95 NORTH" "Richmond, VA"
Who not add VA like they have on US-17 saying Chesapeake?
Because Richmond is well known enough to stand on its own.
I wouldn't mind listing Washington D.C. and miles to on a shoulder sign in NC near the border on 85 and 95 though.
When the poster mentioned I-10 I first thought they were referring to it in Calif.
They stopped replacing the Barstow sign on i-40 in Wilmington because it was stolen about 20 times.
I always made sure i saw the Wilmington sign when I drove through Barstow. All I remember about it was that it was on wooden posts and was a dull colored sign.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 27, 2021, 06:49:14 PM
The opening of the connector has been delayed again... From the RDU meet thread:
Quote from: 74/171FAN on April 26, 2021, 09:43:46 AM
QuoteHello Mr. Moore,
East End Connector will not be open to traffic in June 2021. The contractor is completing final construction items throughout the project before they place the final layer of asphalt. I am unable to give an exact date of opening right now. Although the entire project will most likely not be 100% complete by the end of the year, we do expect the connector from NC 147 to US 70 (I-885) to be open to traffic by that time.
Please do not hesitate to contact me again with any questions or requests for updates.
Kind regards,
Liam Shannon, Resident Engineer
ABC11 (WTVD) posted an interview with Liam Shannon yesterday regarding the delays.
https://abc11.com/traffic/whats-the-hold-up-on-the-east-end-connector-ncdot-explains/10673823/ (https://abc11.com/traffic/whats-the-hold-up-on-the-east-end-connector-ncdot-explains/10673823/)
Isn't the east end connector supposed to open this month?
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2021, 09:10:46 AM
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
I did. But I want to know what the progress is like
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2021, 09:10:46 AM
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
I did. But I want to know what the progress is like
Its been like 90% done for the last 2 months. Pavement is down, overhead signs are up, no lines painted yet. Interchanges just about complete.
Source: drive past nearly every day
Quote from: fillup420 on June 02, 2021, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2021, 09:10:46 AM
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
I did. But I want to know what the progress is like
Its been like 90% done for the last 2 months. Pavement is down, overhead signs are up, no lines painted yet. Interchanges just about complete.
Source: drive past nearly every day
The exact completion % according to NCDOT is 93.8 as of May, that's up from 93.6 in February. At that pace it should be 100% complete in Sept. 2031. :-D
Quote from: bob7374 on June 02, 2021, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 02, 2021, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2021, 09:10:46 AM
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
I did. But I want to know what the progress is like
Its been like 90% done for the last 2 months. Pavement is down, overhead signs are up, no lines painted yet. Interchanges just about complete.
Source: drive past nearly every day
The exact completion % according to NCDOT is 93.8 as of May, that's up from 93.6 in February. At that pace it should be 100% complete in Sept. 2031. :-D
Which means they are just wasting time. Like come on....... GET A MOVE ON!
Has the Interstate 885 designation been officially submitted and approved yet? It seems like they are dragging their feet on everything! I do have confidence everything will be completed eventually. Whether or not we have the patience to wait that long is another story.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 10:57:29 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 02, 2021, 10:53:42 PM
Quote from: fillup420 on June 02, 2021, 05:58:46 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 02, 2021, 09:12:08 AM
Quote from: froggie on June 02, 2021, 09:10:46 AM
^ Read upthread...you'll find your answer.
I did. But I want to know what the progress is like
Its been like 90% done for the last 2 months. Pavement is down, overhead signs are up, no lines painted yet. Interchanges just about complete.
Source: drive past nearly every day
The exact completion % according to NCDOT is 93.8 as of May, that's up from 93.6 in February. At that pace it should be 100% complete in Sept. 2031. :-D
Which means they are just wasting time. Like come on....... GET A MOVE ON!
The blame falls to the contractor and CSX per this story: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article251843723.html
Building the new railroad bridge by the contractor was delayed due to winter weather. It is complete, but it is up to CSX to lay the tracks (and CSX has been shedding employees to cut costs for the benefit of stockholders). Once the tracks are in place and the new bridge is in use, the temporary bridge can be demolished, removing concrete piers that are in the way of new lanes for the new road.
While we wait (and wait and wait..,) for the East End Connector to be opened, I've posted some photos taken recently over the unopened roadway, courtesy of roadwaywiz:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885rw621l.jpg)
The rest at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
Great photos! Thanks.
The signage makes clear that NC 147 will continue coincident with I-885.
If it said Petersburg, VA then it would make more sense to me.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 23, 2021, 06:28:32 PM
If it said Petersburg, VA then it would make more sense to me.
Is there a Petersburg, NC to be confused with?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on June 23, 2021, 05:33:25 PM
Great photos! Thanks.
The signage makes clear that NC 147 will continue coincident with I-885.
It's likely temporary, since there are plans to eliminate that overlap, as well as redesignate the tolled section of NC-147 as NC-885.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 06:41:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 23, 2021, 06:28:32 PM
If it said Petersburg, VA then it would make more sense to me.
Is there a Petersburg, NC to be confused with?
There is a Petersburg, NC but that town is so tiny and is in the western part of the state just north of Asheville, so no confusion here.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 06:41:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 23, 2021, 06:28:32 PM
If it said Petersburg, VA then it would make more sense to me.
Is there a Petersburg, NC to be confused with?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersburg,_Onslow_County,_North_Carolina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petersburg,_Madison_County,_North_Carolina
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
And?
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
And?
They make more sense!
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
And?
They make more sense!
Each state have its own way of signage. Some states does not include other states with the control city, while others do. Like for example, going down I-95 South approaching I-85, you would see Rocky Mount, NC.. and the other one just Durham without "NC". Also, when you go east on I-40 approaching I-240 in Tennessee, you'd see "Jackson Miss". It just depends on each state. It isn't about what makes more sense or not. It is their way of signing the control cities. Most of the time, control cities that include well-known city names does not include a state abbreviation next to it.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
And?
They make more sense!
That's because Rocky Mount, VA is much more substantial of a town than Petersburg, NC is.
Well, we do have Chesapeake VA
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 10:30:41 PM
Well, we do have Chesapeake VA
Yeah, and I don't understand that one - it's unnecessary. If anything, it should be Norfolk, the more notable city of the region, but I believe the rationale is because US-17 does not actually enter it (one has to use I-464 or I-64 to connect into it), it cannot be signed. Same reason Portsmouth and Newport News are used on mileage signs north of Elizabeth City, not Virginia Beach or Norfolk.
C'mon. Petersburg, NC? You had to look that up. They're not even real towns. They're barely even crossroads. But, excellent effort for making a case.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 24, 2021, 10:59:17 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 10:30:41 PM
Well, we do have Chesapeake VA
Yeah, and I don't understand that one - it's unnecessary. If anything, it should be Norfolk, the more notable city of the region, but I believe the rationale is because US-17 does not actually enter it (one has to use I-464 or I-64 to connect into it), it cannot be signed. Same reason Portsmouth and Newport News are used on mileage signs north of Elizabeth City, not Virginia Beach or Norfolk.
Norfolk signs used to be more common before the modernization of US 17.
Here is one still up - https://goo.gl/maps/BrxAfngWRNktVSYH6
GMSV is from 2008 so don't know if this one in South Mills with Norfolk is still there - https://goo.gl/maps/zyntzHK6dLThASss8
The sign on NC 343 north has Portsmouth.
There used to be a mileage sign with Portsmouth leaving Hertford but this got replaced with an Eliz City only sign.
^ More interestingly, in Chesapeake itself, US-17 at the US-17 Business / George Washington Hwy (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6870879,-76.3472253,3a,36.1y,18.6h,84.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si28KjzpIqI4RfQDjGoeoGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) junction uses not only Norfolk, but Richmond as control cities. It's also followed by a To I-64 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6880604,-76.3471143,3a,33.3y,8.45h,87.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgpa3EArcWaocBXAHlF1Afg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) shield. Likely in an effort to direct through traffic to use US-17 Dominion Blvd vs. George Washington Hwy through Deep Creek. This was placed before the widening and freeway upgrade of Dominion Blvd where both routes were merely 2 lane roads, though I'd argue Dominion Blvd still would've been the better route given congestion through Deep Creek. It's still a 50-50 if connecting to I-64 near Bowers Hill whether to take the straight shot through Deep Creek, or take the V shaped route via the Oak Grove Interchange to stay on expressway / freeway. During peak hours, both routes are bad (Oak Grove Interchange / High Rise Bridge congestion vs. Deep Creek congestion) and during off peak neither routes are bad (slower, arterial but more direct through Deep Creek vs. freeway / expressway (and a toll) but longer distance). To I-64 towards Norfolk / Virginia Beach though, US-17 Dominion Blvd is by far the most direct and fastest route.
Quote from: tolbs17 on June 24, 2021, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2021, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 23, 2021, 09:51:33 PM
No one is going to confuse "Petersburg" with those, I can assure you.
My thoughts exactly. I don't see the need to add "VA" to Petersburg.
but in Virginia the signs include NC
Only Rocky Mount has NC after it to my knowledge and it's for good reason. Rocky Mount isn't exactly a well-known or sizeable city along the East Coast.
Durham can stand on its own, and Miami and Atlanta certainly can.
Ok so this discussion for me is only worthy talking about interstate signs not secondary roads.
And NC has been so full of itself in recent decades that it never mentioned other state's cities until right at the state border.
In Gastonia, NC last week off I-85 the overhead sign for I-85 South said Kings Mountain.
Even though you're pretty close to the SC border and Kings Mt. isn't much of a control city, that is what they chose to put on the overhead for getting back onto the interstate.
That is why mentioning Petersburg at all in the Durham area is somewhat surprising for NC.
To me, it hints that all of the Northerners in Raleigh now have infiltrated the DOT and they aren't as full of that NC narcissism.
To add on the Rocky Mount, NC discussion Rocky Mount, Va is a known City in Virginia. VA state route 40 which goes through Rocky Mount, Va intersects I-95 between Petersburg and the state line. On US 220 in Rocky Mount, Va VDOT has signage to avoid confusion between Va 40 and I-40. VDOT really thought this through. Now back to I-885.
FWIW, signs in Charlotte completely ignore Atlanta, even though that is the next major city on I-85 south, and is a hell of a lot bigger than either Spartanburg or Greenville. Same deal with GDOT mentioning Greenville instead of Charlotte on I-85 north after it has split off I-75.
Although I do suspect that it's probably because of that fierce rivalry going on between the two cities...hey, if VDOT can put Atlanta and Miami on signs, then why won't NCDOT do the same? Well, come to think of it, Miami gets a pass because you have a much longer way to go before you make it there anyway, but leaving off Atlanta is certainly no excuse.
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2021, 07:53:11 PM
FWIW, signs in Charlotte completely ignore Atlanta, even though that is the next major city on I-85 south, and is a hell of a lot bigger than either Spartanburg or Greenville. Same deal with GDOT mentioning Greenville instead of Charlotte on I-85 north after it has split off I-75.
Although I do suspect that it's probably because of that fierce rivalry going on between the two cities...hey, if VDOT can put Atlanta and Miami on signs, then why won't NCDOT do the same? Well, come to think of it, Miami gets a pass because you have a much longer way to go before you make it there anyway, but leaving off Atlanta is certainly no excuse.
Well Spartanburg (signs in Charlotte are gonna say Spartanburg and GreensBORO) is the next metro area. So while not Atlanta size, the Upstate is the next big urban center to be signed.
I think the Atlanta/Miami signs you're thinking of in Petersburg VA are meant to divide the people coming down from the NE corridor into the Miami crowd and the Atlanta crowd and help with navigation for the two biggest destinations past Virginia.
Will someone explain what any of this has to do with I-885 in Durham, North Carolina?
I have a feeling when the East End Connector is complete, That's only going to spew more traffic onto I-540 (which is already a heavily congested highway), it's gonna cause a bottleneck, pushing it to be widened.
Glenwood Avenue aswell.
And to add to that, the loop at I-540 which goes to I-87 North, that would be even worse!
Build it and they will come. Don't build it and they will still come. I still say build it, assuming it is a useful connection to the regional freeway system.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:30:18 PM
Build it and they will come. Don't build it and they will still come. I still say build it, assuming it is a useful connection to the regional freeway system.
Good thing is less traffic will be on I-440.
Quote from: Henry on June 28, 2021, 07:53:11 PM
FWIW, signs in Charlotte completely ignore Atlanta, even though that is the next major city on I-85 south, and is a hell of a lot bigger than either Spartanburg or Greenville. Same deal with GDOT mentioning Greenville instead of Charlotte on I-85 north after it has split off I-75.
Although I do suspect that it's probably because of that fierce rivalry going on between the two cities...hey, if VDOT can put Atlanta and Miami on signs, then why won't NCDOT do the same? Well, come to think of it, Miami gets a pass because you have a much longer way to go before you make it there anyway, but leaving off Atlanta is certainly no excuse.
The determination of which control city to name on signage has nothing to do with the biggest or most influential at a further distance.
The only reason Miami, Durham and Atlanta are mentioned in VA Southbound is because:
!) I-95 is arguably the most important highway in the country and at Petersburg it forks with the start of another very important corridor through the Southeast passing through 20-30 million people and it's one of the main industrial corridors
It wouldn't make sense to mention the end of I-85 because that's not a major destination. Atlanta is the biggest region along 85 and somewhat near it's end.
Miami and Atlanta are good indicators of how this fork of two East Coast interstates will send you in different directions.
Greenville Spartanburg are perfectly appropriate control cities whether you're coming from the South or the North.
The gist was that NC is so full of itself that it will avoid using out of state control cities all the way until the borders as if no world exists outside of the state that's worth naming, lol.
My hometown of Louisburg is mentioned on I-95 and I-85, on I-95 it's merely because it's the the end/start of NC561, (NC581 too). On I-85 it's mentioned because it and Franklinton are close on NC56 and technically they are part of the Triangle.
According to the project timeline, the EEC will open in December. Whether that'll actually happen or not remains to be seen...
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx)
Quote from: LM117 on August 06, 2021, 08:09:30 AM
According to the project timeline, the EEC will open in December. Whether that'll actually happen or not remains to be seen...
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx)
As the timeline also shows, construction began in February 2015. If the road doesn't open until spring, that would be seven years to build a mile and a quarter of freeway. Even given the complexity of the project that is hard to justify.
Drove through there Monday, and it doesn't look like any demo work has started on the old RR overpass. Can't remember what the timeline was on that from the last news article.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2021, 06:01:19 PM
Quote from: LM117 on August 06, 2021, 08:09:30 AM
According to the project timeline, the EEC will open in December. Whether that'll actually happen or not remains to be seen...
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/east-end-connector/Pages/default.aspx)
As the timeline also shows, construction began in February 2015. If the road doesn't open until spring, that would be seven years to build a mile and a quarter of freeway. Even given the complexity of the project that is hard to justify.
As it is now, the HRBT expansion in Virginia is slated to be done by 2025, which started construction in 2020. That would involve the construction of over a mile of new 8 lane bridge, nearly a mile of two 2 lane underwater tunnels, and nearly 10 miles of landside widening from 4 to 8 lanes.
Then again... let's see how on schedule that goes. The I-64 High Rise Expansion began in 2018 and was supposed to be completed by 2021, but is now on schedule for late 2022 / early 2023.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works.
Still no request for I-885...
Quote from: LM117 on August 10, 2021, 06:40:58 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works.
Still no request for I-885...
September.
Drove through the for the first time in two years. Not really following the progress, I was surprised to see the I-885/NC 147 junction has not opened yet. One thing I did notice was a "SOUTH 885" marker just south of the (closed) interchange. And a lot of covered up guide panels.
It wont be opened till early 2022 now. The project is done minus the removal of the old RR bridge over US 70. But 95% of the project is done. The BGS have been covered for quite a while now and the I 885 shield has been up on 147 south. They have a few on US 70 too but then covered them back up again
Quote from: AvDave829 on August 23, 2021, 05:59:17 PM
It wont be opened till early 2022 now. The project is done minus the removal of the old RR bridge over US 70. But 95% of the project is done. The BGS have been covered for quite a while now and the I 885 shield has been up on 147 south. They have a few on US 70 too but then covered them back up again
I drive under that old RR bridge every day and wonder, whats the hold up? just get on with removing it already... freakin CSX, man
I totally understand., It is aggravating every time I drive past it on either end.
I should have said temp bridge before instead of old bridge. Who owned/owns it anyway? Is it CSX or Norfolk Southern, or both? Both are involved as CSX serves the customers near Durham, but NS continues to Oxford. I keep hearing about CSX and not NS, though. Not sure why they need a double-track bridge for so little traffic, but I guess they want to keeps their operations separated and avoid trackage rights.
Did the SCL abandon the line from Durham to Henderson before construction started on Falls Lake?
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on August 24, 2021, 08:14:34 AM
I should have said temp bridge before instead of old bridge. Who owned/owns it anyway? Is it CSX or Norfolk Southern, or both? Both are involved as CSX serves the customers near Durham, but NS continues to Oxford. I keep hearing about CSX and not NS, though. Not sure why they need a double-track bridge for so little traffic, but I guess they want to keeps their operations separated and avoid trackage rights.
Did the SCL abandon the line from Durham to Henderson before construction started on Falls Lake?
CSX is the holdup. Per a news story earlier this year (now behind a paywall), the contractor building the new bridge was delayed due to winter weather. The bridge is finished, but it is up to CSX to lay the tracks. Once that is done, the old/temporary bridge can be demolished.
Quote from: VTGoose on August 24, 2021, 08:54:30 AM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on August 24, 2021, 08:14:34 AM
I should have said temp bridge before instead of old bridge. Who owned/owns it anyway? Is it CSX or Norfolk Southern, or both? Both are involved as CSX serves the customers near Durham, but NS continues to Oxford. I keep hearing about CSX and not NS, though. Not sure why they need a double-track bridge for so little traffic, but I guess they want to keeps their operations separated and avoid trackage rights.
Did the SCL abandon the line from Durham to Henderson before construction started on Falls Lake?
CSX is the holdup. Per a news story earlier this year (now behind a paywall), the contractor building the new bridge was delayed due to winter weather. The bridge is finished, but it is up to CSX to lay the tracks. Once that is done, the old/temporary bridge can be demolished.
CSX is notorious for being a huge PITA to deal with. I have yet to hear of any town or contractor that has had a good experience with them.
The only actual work CSX is responsible for is the mainline tie-ins on both ends when the mainline is restored. This is very minor work that happens at the very end of the project, maybe 3 days worth of work. The rest of the work is being performed by NS and NCDOT's contractor. Sorry guys.
There is a two track bridge for the CSX and NS mainlines. Both railroads have interests north and south of the subject bridge.
Yes, the LCL did in fact abandoned that segment of track you're referring to.
I saw track workers laying ballast on the new bridge today, hopefully a sign of progress
Looks like more still needs to be done.....
10th st connector took roughly 5 years.
Now this is almost 7 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d10WJVfUE0s
I've posted a couple photos taken by Adam Prince along US 70 East/Future I-885 South, one showing why the Connector is still not open, the still standing temporary railroad bridge behind the new one:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885signsap1021b.jpg)
The other is at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
Isn't the construction time the same to the I-76 NJ 42 and I-295 interchange?
Aren't railroad bridges expensive and take forever to build?
Quote from: jdunlop on August 12, 2021, 11:57:48 AM
Quote from: LM117 on August 10, 2021, 06:40:58 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.
CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works.
Still no request for I-885...
September.
Hopefully, they remembered this time.
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 01, 2021, 08:10:24 AM
Aren't railroad bridges expensive and take forever to build?
Not when the railroad is constructing them. There's a newer two-track railroad bridge on the North Carolina Rail Road over NC-54 in Research Triangle Park was completed by Norfolk Southern about 2002 or 2003. When the Triangle Transit Authority (now Triangle Transit, dba Go Triangle) was engineering a nearly-identical structure parallel to this one, it was projected to cost over $24M in 2005 dollars. As a comparison, somebody came back and reported that the NCRR structure cost less than $9M. It highlights the age-old argument that Federal regulations make things cost more, but doesn't fully explain the difference. Time is money, and the real reason for the lower cost is that the railroad gets those big projects completed quickly.
On the other hand, railroads are happy to let other agencies construct new railroad bridges and roadbeds using the agency's turnkey contractor. Working in close proximity to the railroad requires "track time" (permission to be working under FRA Roadway Worker Protection rules, which allows work on/near the tracks during times when trains aren't running). If the new bridge will generate more income, you'll get plenty of help from the railroad; if the new bridge is liability improvement (for instance, grade separation), you'll get cooperation from the railroad; if the new bridge is simply moving over a bit, the railroad doesn't have much incentive to help; if the new bridge is a nuisance, the railroad has no incentive to cooperate. Since this trackage involves branch lines for both CSX and Norfolk Southern, the project probably falls somewhere in the middle. [I believe that CSX dispatches this trackage as part of its Durham and Northern subdivision, but I don't have my timetables handy to check them].
^Clarification. The CSX Florence Timetable shows the Joyland Lead as part of the Aberdeen Subdivision. I'm assuming that the Durham and Northern is now mostly abandoned, and that the control of train movements from Durham Yard north into Joyland and beyond is now under the control of the Norfolk Southern. The way it is shown in the timetable indicates the CSX trackage is operated like an industrial spur (which is exactly how NS would treat it). Anyhow, train movements across I-885 would thus be under Norfolk Southern dispatching (perhaps as part of the yard limits).
Track work is complete. Bridge demo will be underway in short order.
Quote from: tjcreasy on November 02, 2021, 01:20:07 PM
Track work is complete. Bridge demo will be underway in short order.
But winter's coming, so final pavement can't be laid until spring. 7 years to build a mile and half of expressway.
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 06, 2021, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
They already placed asphalt on there 4 years ago! :banghead:
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 06, 2021, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
They already placed asphalt on there 4 years ago! :banghead:
But is the top layer?
I was just home driving on the US401 4-laning project between Rolesville and Louisburg. They unbelievably have concrete curbs on what is a rural highway and the roadway is noticeably waiting for the top few inches of asphalt to be added.
The curbs might be included if it's an official superstreet like the Rolesville Bypass is.
It's unfortunate that the final 6-mile section to Louisburg had its funding delayed to right-of-way purchase in 2029.
I hope the county's state senator can "clawback" the funding sooner.
After a statewide loop from Charlotte to Wilmington on US74 then to Raleigh and back to Atlanta via US64/NC49 through Charlotte on Tryon, 77, 485 back to 85, I still admire the state's high standards for roads.
I saw workers weed-eating under guardrails, and lots of lurking state troopers too.
Would y'all join me in getting NCDOT to replace the many embarrassing faded overhead signs that only seem to exist in Raleigh on 440 and 540 near US1?
I mean they try too hard to be fair to the whole state and Raleigh is the lowest priority. The most trash and worst overhead sign conditions I saw in the entire state.
Quote from: architect77 on November 06, 2021, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 06, 2021, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
They already placed asphalt on there 4 years ago! :banghead:
Would y'all join me in getting NCDOT to replace the many embarrassing faded overhead signs that only seem to exist in Raleigh on 440 and 540 near US1?
I'm sure you're talking about these:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.862299,-78.5500375,3a,49.9y,142.75h,101.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6JQE73gfRF0V0aSo0WNmEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8607013,-78.5473176,3a,15y,346.95h,92.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.005806%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8540177,-78.5287908,3a,43.1y,101.64h,103.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UvuIe3HvML5tjeW1XIBhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
And yes that embarrasses me.
____________________________________________________
Did the demolition of the temporary railroad bridge start yet?
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 27, 2021, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: architect77 on November 06, 2021, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 06, 2021, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
They already placed asphalt on there 4 years ago! :banghead:
Would y'all join me in getting NCDOT to replace the many embarrassing faded overhead signs that only seem to exist in Raleigh on 440 and 540 near US1?
I'm sure you're talking about these:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.862299,-78.5500375,3a,49.9y,142.75h,101.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6JQE73gfRF0V0aSo0WNmEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8607013,-78.5473176,3a,15y,346.95h,92.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.005806%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8540177,-78.5287908,3a,43.1y,101.64h,103.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UvuIe3HvML5tjeW1XIBhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
And yes that embarrasses me.
The road opened in 2007. How long should these overhead signs last?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 27, 2021, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 27, 2021, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: architect77 on November 06, 2021, 09:57:25 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 06, 2021, 02:09:51 PM
Quote from: snowc on November 06, 2021, 01:57:28 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 02, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
Here's the news report with all the information about the latest delay to next spring, due to: the demolition will not start until December, it will take 6 weeks to complete, completion in January means that it will be too cold to put final pavement down in the bridge area, final striping of the entire route will not take place until all the paving is completed:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article255474246.html)
"The completion date has now been pushed back at least four times, mostly related to the railroad bridges. The new bridges were supposed to be completed by the end of 2018"
Jeesums crimeny! That pavement must be :ded: and all grey after 4 years! :banghead:
Have they already put down the final wearing course on the entire road, or has none of it been done yet? I'd have thought they'd wait and do it all at once.
They already placed asphalt on there 4 years ago! :banghead:
Would y'all join me in getting NCDOT to replace the many embarrassing faded overhead signs that only seem to exist in Raleigh on 440 and 540 near US1?
I'm sure you're talking about these:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.862299,-78.5500375,3a,49.9y,142.75h,101.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6JQE73gfRF0V0aSo0WNmEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8607013,-78.5473176,3a,15y,346.95h,92.07t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D-qqQIySom8E0efETHF8clA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D104.005806%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8540177,-78.5287908,3a,43.1y,101.64h,103.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7UvuIe3HvML5tjeW1XIBhw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
And yes that embarrasses me.
The road opened in 2007. How long should these overhead signs last?
Just 14 years...
EDIT: I thought you were asking how long they lasted. They should last 20 years according to this link - http://www.trafficsign.us/signsheet.html
QuoteSingle-layer glass bead sheetings usually fail by gradually losing their retroreflective intensity. This is due to increasing opacity of the pigmented material caused by ultraviolet ray exposure due to sunlight. This can result in a sign that looks good in daytime but is difficult to read at night. After extended exposure (20+ years), this sheeting will crack and peel from the sign substrate.
But when looking at these overhead signs, which are nearly 15 years old, they reached the end of their life span and need replacement surprisingly. The older ones along US-264 from Zebulon to Wilson, US 64 from Zebulon to Rocky Mount, and pretty much all of I-95 did better!
Looking at another article, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Button_copy
QuoteIn contrast, signs made out of retroreflective sheeting are expected to last only around 15 years.
So the signs along I-540 (near Highway 1) basically reached the end of their lifespan. But looking over here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9037828,-78.7744453,3a,28.7y,63.53h,101.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJLUw14LoaNpDp65lshb7PA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) which is an older section, these are in better shape! It might be some poor design or some first introduction to retroreflective sheeting to the ones near US-1, (as there's no lighting on them compared to the other ones I linked) I guess that's how it is...
When looking at both links, they are expected to last only 15-20 years.
The overhead signs on I-540 needs to be its own topic. I live off Buffalo Road and i can attest that they're illegible at this point.
For comparisons sake, the I-40/85 multiplex signs from the mid 90s are in great condition.
I have posted new photos of Future I-885 courtesy of Adam Prince showing lack of progress due to the continued existence of the temporary railroad bridge, hopefully to be demolished in the next few weeks:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885ap1121f.jpg)
The remainder of the photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
It's the brutal Western sun that degrades the signs.
My gripe is that Raleigh is just about the most talked about city in the country, and I don't see this level of sign degradation anywhere else in the state so....
because someone moves to the area every 30 minutes 24 hours a day 7 days a week, they must bea little disappointed in the visual appearance, not to mention the trash along the highwaysl.
So I'm sending photos of these 540 signs to NCDOT on my 3rd or 4th request to get these signs replaced. the Beltline has some needing replacement too.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 30, 2021, 11:49:26 AM
I have posted new photos of Future I-885 courtesy of Adam Prince showing lack of progress due to the continued existence of the temporary railroad bridge, hopefully to be demolished in the next few weeks:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885ap1121f.jpg)
The remainder of the photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
About time!
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 27, 2021, 06:18:02 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 27, 2021, 06:09:03 PM
The road opened in 2007. How long should these overhead signs last?
Just 14 years...
EDIT: I thought you were asking how long they lasted. They should last 20 years according to this link - http://www.trafficsign.us/signsheet.html
QuoteSingle-layer glass bead sheetings usually fail by gradually losing their retroreflective intensity. This is due to increasing opacity of the pigmented material caused by ultraviolet ray exposure due to sunlight. This can result in a sign that looks good in daytime but is difficult to read at night. After extended exposure (20+ years), this sheeting will crack and peel from the sign substrate.
That 20 year figure is for
single-layer glass bead sheetings–i.e. engineer-grade (Type I) sheeting. That type of sheeting was disallowed under new reflectivity standards in 2009, so it's possible NCDOT was using one of the newer, more reflective multi-layer sheetings by 2007. Multi-layer sheetings are more reflective, but the multiple layers can detach from one another easier than engineer-grade sheeting, so they are assumed to only have a 10 year service life.
Sheeting type is pretty easy to tell if you can walk up close to a sign. (See this Traffic Sign Retroreflective Sheeting Identification Guide (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/sign_visib/sheetguide/).) Multi-layer sheeting has a layer of netting holding it together that looks like a honeycomb or diamond pattern. Engineer grade sheeting has a uniform texture, sometimes with small manufacturer identification watermarks printed into it.
I sent requests for the signs at Buffaloe and Lousiburg Rd to be replaced.
Would all of you kindly do the same? It will speed up their replacement.
Thank you.
Quote from: architect77 on December 05, 2021, 05:48:47 PM
I sent requests for the signs at Buffaloe and Lousiburg Rd to be replaced.
Would all of you kindly do the same? It will speed up their replacement.
Thank you.
Done.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 06, 2021, 05:29:44 PM
Quote from: architect77 on December 05, 2021, 05:48:47 PM
I sent requests for the signs at Buffaloe and Lousiburg Rd to be replaced.
Would all of you kindly do the same? It will speed up their replacement.
Thank you.
Done.
Thsnk you for the team effort. The US's infrastructure is aging rapidly and we gotta keep 'em informed about unacceptable conditions.
Quote from: architect77 on December 16, 2021, 08:15:43 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 06, 2021, 05:29:44 PM
Quote from: architect77 on December 05, 2021, 05:48:47 PM
I sent requests for the signs at Buffaloe and Lousiburg Rd to be replaced.
Would all of you kindly do the same? It will speed up their replacement.
Thank you.
Done.
Thsnk you for the team effort. The US's infrastructure is aging rapidly and we gotta keep 'em informed about unacceptable conditions.
Yes sir.
I'm sure a fact would be if it weren't for the railroad bridge going over the highway, this project could have been completed in 2019.
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
I'm sure a fact would be if it weren't for the railroad bridge going over the highway, this project could have been completed in 2019.
The railroad bridge which still has not been touched in regards to removal. We are waiting, CSX...........
How long before one of us pulls a Richard Ankrom and just tears the bridge down themself in the middle of the night?
As a note, I drove on I-85 through the area yesterday and there was no signage (even new overheads being installed) indicating Future I-885.
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 19, 2021, 11:09:23 AM
How long before one of us pulls a Richard Ankrom and just tears the bridge down themself in the middle of the night?
I had very similar thoughts while passing under it yesterday. Time to locate some dynamite....
NCDOT is insisting that the connector will open this spring.
https://www.wral.com/spring-opening-planned-for-east-end-connector-linking-nc-147-and-us-70-in-durham/20085935/ (https://www.wral.com/spring-opening-planned-for-east-end-connector-linking-nc-147-and-us-70-in-durham/20085935/)
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on May 05, 2021, 08:45:08 AM
Not sure what the proper term is for these signs, but I believe he's referring to the ones on the local roads prior to the interchange with I-85. These are all north of Henderson.
Example 1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4291809,-78.2943701,3a,15.7y,339.69h,86.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfB48po-s5woiit3kth7ySA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544807,-78.2658315,3a,45.3y,175.02h,78.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_Bt5SYm3ZPtyPQP86JxbzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4841536,-78.2308346,3a,75y,179.96h,76.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQsx7QBQCQHnaOu5K1rssIA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Example 4 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5332932,-78.1899282,3a,19.4y,342.34h,87.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm03dts9JqsBCFSUQ0qD53w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Street view updated and one of them has changed to Petersburg.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:15 PM
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
The article says the demolition will begin late this month or early February. Until that starts, I will remain skeptical as to any statement of when I-885 is opening.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 23, 2022, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:15 PM
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
The article says the demolition will begin late this month or early February. Until that starts, I will remain skeptical as to any statement of when I-885 is opening.
I agree. One positive note is that the press is beginning (belatedly) to pick up on this situation.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 23, 2022, 06:04:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 23, 2022, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:15 PM
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
The article says the demolition will begin late this month or early February. Until that starts, I will remain skeptical as to any statement of when I-885 is opening.
I agree. One positive note is that the press is beginning (belatedly) to pick up on this situation.
As of yesterday, the bridge has still not been touched.....
Quote from: fillup420 on January 28, 2022, 09:48:02 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 23, 2022, 06:04:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 23, 2022, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:15 PM
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
The article says the demolition will begin late this month or early February. Until that starts, I will remain skeptical as to any statement of when I-885 is opening.
I agree. One positive note is that the press is beginning (belatedly) to pick up on this situation.
As of yesterday, the bridge has still not been touched.....
There goes the late January start...
Is it still the Railroad's fault?
I'm pretty sure CSX was not aware of this project when it happened.
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 03:00:09 PM
I'm pretty sure CSX was not aware of this project when it happened.
This project has been ongoing for seven years following fifty (50) years of planning. No one can claim they were not aware of this project.
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2022, 11:39:01 AM
Quote from: fillup420 on January 28, 2022, 09:48:02 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 23, 2022, 06:04:42 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 23, 2022, 10:42:11 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 21, 2022, 08:56:15 PM
About Damn time!!! I hope to never see a highway project like this again where they fuck with a railroad company to allocate the bridges/tracks when a widening or new highway project is done.
Did they even state that the temporary bridge has been demolished yet? Because I didn't hear anything in that video. But when looking at it, it does look like that it was resurfaced.
The article says the demolition will begin late this month or early February. Until that starts, I will remain skeptical as to any statement of when I-885 is opening.
I agree. One positive note is that the press is beginning (belatedly) to pick up on this situation.
As of yesterday, the bridge has still not been touched.....
There goes the late January start...
They could start it on Monday, which would still technically be a 'late' January start. :sombrero:
Quote from: tjcreasy on January 29, 2022, 12:45:42 PM
Is it still the Railroad's fault?
Quote from: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 03:00:09 PM
I'm pretty sure CSX was not aware of this project when it happened.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 29, 2022, 06:24:54 PM
This project has been ongoing for seven years following fifty (50) years of planning. No one can claim they were not aware of this project.
Although this bridge is technically on the CSX Joyland Subdivision (former Durham & Northern), it is part of Norfolk Southern's D-Line from Durham to Oxford.
If the "powers that be" can't be bothered to tear down a stupid railroad bridge, maybe we should take matters into our own hands, and tear it down ourselves. By any means necessary!
The results from the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering were finally published this weekend (link to applications can be found in the North Carolina topic thread). Among the interstates approved (conditioned on FHWA concurrence) are two segments of I-42 in NC, the US 70 Clayton and Goldsboro bypasses, along with an 75+ mile expansion of I-240 in OK. What wasn't on their agenda? I-885, of course. Apparently NCDOT didn't believe the road would be open prior to at least the Spring 2022 AASHTO meeting. Guess they had nothing to worry about. If they believe it is simply a rubber stamp operation, why not send it in and get it over with?
Approved or not, the Interstate 885 signs have already been erected (even if they are covered up). I wonder why AASHTO could approve those other routes, but couldn't be bothered to approve 885?
So if it's not approved then will I-885 need to be signed as a state route on the east end connector?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2022, 02:56:05 PMI wonder why AASHTO could approve those other routes, but couldn't be bothered to approve 885?
AASHTO can be bothered to approve 885, but have not because NCDOT can't be bothered to ask them to do so.
Quote from: english si on February 14, 2022, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2022, 02:56:05 PMI wonder why AASHTO could approve those other routes, but couldn't be bothered to approve 885?
AASHTO can be bothered to approve 885, but have not because NCDOT can't be bothered to ask them to do so.
Obviously NCDOt knows very well how to apply to AASHTO for approval of an interstate number. Therefore: the only reason we don't see them applying for I-885 approval is that they don't think they need to. I have no idea why that would be; does anyone have a suggestion?
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2022, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: english si on February 14, 2022, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2022, 02:56:05 PMI wonder why AASHTO could approve those other routes, but couldn't be bothered to approve 885?
AASHTO can be bothered to approve 885, but have not because NCDOT can't be bothered to ask them to do so.
Obviously NCDOt knows very well how to apply to AASHTO for approval of an interstate number. Therefore: the only reason we don't see them applying for I-885 approval is that they don't think they need to. I have no idea why that would be; does anyone have a suggestion?
Apparently they are confident that it will be approved when they send in the application since the FHWA has signed off on it. That an AASHTO rubber stamp is the last of the punch list items to be completed. It also shows they don't believe the road will open before the next AASHTO meeting which is probably in May. I assume demolition work on the railroad bridge has still not begun.
I mean, they're confident enough that they just did a sign replacement and posted a whole bunch of new signs with mostly covered-up I-885 shields on them. I wish I'd taken pictures when I drove most of NC 147 back in October.
Hell fucking yeah!!!
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-16-us-70-closure-railroad-bridge-demo.aspx
Quote from: english si on February 14, 2022, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2022, 02:56:05 PMI wonder why AASHTO could approve those other routes, but couldn't be bothered to approve 885?
AASHTO can be bothered to approve 885, but have not because NCDOT can't be bothered to ask them to do so.
Honestly, it's because lately NCDOT seems to only put forward *completed* segments for signage. And I-885 isn't done because of that godforsaken bridge. The 42 and 587 pieces they applied for are done. They could though have put forward a FUTURE 885 request as they had done for FUTURES 42, 87, and 587 already. But they seem to think they save effort to just wait until the road's actually available. Hence things like NC 295, NC 74, etc. (Well, guess they can't do NC 87 or NC 42 with I-87 or I-42 future segments, now can they!)
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 02:43:38 PM
Hell fucking yeah!!!
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-16-us-70-closure-railroad-bridge-demo.aspx
Great news! Maybe one day soon we can actually see 885 signs go up
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 16, 2022, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 02:43:38 PM
Hell fucking yeah!!!
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-16-us-70-closure-railroad-bridge-demo.aspx
Great news! Maybe one day soon we can actually see 885 signs go up
See reply #4736 for those details. The 885 signs will NOT go up until this project is completed.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.4725
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 06:34:56 PM
Quote from: ahj2000 on February 16, 2022, 06:11:01 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 02:43:38 PM
Hell fucking yeah!!!
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-16-us-70-closure-railroad-bridge-demo.aspx
Great news! Maybe one day soon we can actually see 885 signs go up
See reply #4736 for those details. The 885 signs will NOT go up until this project is completed.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.4725
The press release says otherwise.......
QuoteSignage for the new Interstate 885 will also be installed along the route from I-85 to the north, concurrent with U.S. 70, then onto the new connector and south on existing N.C. 147 to I-40.
So, they'll be installing it at the same time as the do the final surface & lane markings. But, odds are, it will just be covered till they have the official FHWA approval, or just until the connector is open.
What are the repercussions of signing a highway as an interstate before it's officially approved as one? The FHWA cuts off federal funding until the state takes down or covers up the signs?
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 16, 2022, 08:39:22 PM
So, they'll be installing it at the same time as the do the final surface & lane markings. But, odds are, it will just be covered till they have the official FHWA approval, or just until the connector is open.
Better to wait until it actually opens instead of wasting extra time putting the 147 signs up and the 885 decals on them. As of now, new 885 signs have not gone up yet. They will make an announcement of when they do. Especially with lots of lane/ramp closures.
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on February 16, 2022, 08:45:13 PM
What are the repercussions of signing a highway as an interstate before it's officially approved as one? The FHWA cuts off federal funding until the state takes down or covers up the signs?
I have a feeling it could consequently change to NC-885 if it did not receive AASHTO approval! Just like it did for I-540 being designated as NC-540 and I-295 designated as NC-295 for some time (it's back to I-295 now).
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on February 16, 2022, 08:45:13 PM
What are the repercussions of signing a highway as an interstate before it's officially approved as one? The FHWA cuts off federal funding until the state takes down or covers up the signs?
Hehehehehe...that's so...cute.
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 09:44:09 PM
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on February 16, 2022, 08:45:13 PM
What are the repercussions of signing a highway as an interstate before it's officially approved as one? The FHWA cuts off federal funding until the state takes down or covers up the signs?
I have a feeling it could consequently change to NC-885 if it did not receive AASHTO approval! Just like it did for I-540 being designated as NC-540 and I-295 designated as NC-295 for some time (it's back to I-295 now).
.
That was not AASHTO in 540's case - it was a combination of the FHWA and it's position on toll funding for the highway and internal NC politics.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2007/07/i-540-getting-new-name.html
295 was more NCDOT confusion mixed in with the FHWA and if the highway met standards. AASHTO rejected 195 in 2003 but approved 295 the following year. AASHTO had nothing to do with 295 temporarily being demoted to NC 295.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/09/north-carolina-to-petition-aashto-for.html
NCDOT is behaving as if 885 is already approved. Maybe by FHWA if not by AASHTO.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 17, 2022, 05:54:47 PM
NCDOT is behaving as if 885 is already approved. Maybe by FHWA if not by AASHTO.
AASHTO could throw a wrench in their plans, and it has happened in the past with I-140 from Raleigh to Sanford not getting approved, but this does not appear likely to happen. The freeway will be to modern interstate standards and it is a clear connection route that is clearly beneficial for those that do not want to go through the urban core of Durham.
^^
Fully agree.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 18, 2022, 09:54:24 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 17, 2022, 05:54:47 PM
NCDOT is behaving as if 885 is already approved. Maybe by FHWA if not by AASHTO.
AASHTO could throw a wrench in their plans, and it has happened in the past with I-140 from Raleigh to Sanford not getting approved, but this does not appear likely to happen.
If FHWA has already approved (and indications are that they have...pretty sure this project used Federal funding so FHWA would have HAD to view and sign off on the design plans), there isn't much AASHTO can do. I-140 was a different case...there were no large or active projects on the books for US 1.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on February 17, 2022, 05:54:47 PM
NCDOT is behaving as if 885 is already approved. Maybe by FHWA if not by AASHTO.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on February 18, 2022, 09:54:24 AM
AASHTO could throw a wrench in their plans, and it has happened in the past with I-140 from Raleigh to Sanford not getting approved, but this does not appear likely to happen.
Quote from: froggie on February 18, 2022, 10:28:18 AM
If FHWA has already approved (and indications are that they have...pretty sure this project used Federal funding so FHWA would have HAD to view and sign off on the design plans), there isn't much AASHTO can do. I-140 was a different case...there were no large or active projects on the books for US 1.
When I worked on the ill-fated Raleigh-Durham Regional Rail System for Triangle Transit Authority (now Triangle Transit, dba Go Triangle) we had a rail flyover that needed to "land" short of the planned I-885 bridge over the East Durham Yards (Norfolk Southern). Even back then, the planning and design for that project was ahead of ours. It was my understanding that FWHA had already approved the I-885 routing. This whole discussion shows the difference in how FHWA and AASHTO play different roles for new routes versus upgrades and bypasses to existing routes.
This article about the bridge demolition quotes NCDOT indicating I-885 will be completed now 'by the summer':
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article258464638.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article258464638.html)
Are these temporary? Because it should say I-885 WB/EB ramp not US-70.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkkEs3KYBQJpTBkx6
https://goo.gl/maps/6otxAeUVyJr2ygkJ7
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 04:49:52 PM
Are these temporary? Because it should say I-885 WB/EB ramp not US-70.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkkEs3KYBQJpTBkx6
https://goo.gl/maps/6otxAeUVyJr2ygkJ7
Perhaps, they've been there for a few years now. They may stay a little while as I would imagine most people are going to continue considering US 70 as the primary association of the road and eventually get around to considering it 885. I don't even think 87 has kicked in for many people in Raleigh, it's still 64/264.
Quote from: kendallhart808 on February 23, 2022, 09:55:07 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 04:49:52 PM
Are these temporary? Because it should say I-885 WB/EB ramp not US-70.
https://goo.gl/maps/RkkEs3KYBQJpTBkx6
https://goo.gl/maps/6otxAeUVyJr2ygkJ7
Perhaps, they've been there for a few years now. They may stay a little while as I would imagine most people are going to continue considering US 70 as the primary association of the road and eventually get around to considering it 885. I don't even think 87 has kicked in for many people in Raleigh, it's still 64/264.
Hope they are updated. Meanwhile, the intersection is closed tonight for I-885 related construction, perhaps to put in overhead signs headed east on NC 98 to match these covered up ones (why cover up the middle one?) that were put up heading west several months ago:
https://goo.gl/maps/w52cMdJ3XzMm4fyLA (https://goo.gl/maps/w52cMdJ3XzMm4fyLA)
Bridge demo progress as of last Thursday, 3/10.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51938493620_fc4fbe815b_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51938493620_b445d39802_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51937955653_12eac375f6_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51937955653_cc036a8d2c_k.jpg)
as of this morning, all columns from the old bridge have been torn down. Progress!
Also, I want to point out that the sign seen in the previous picture is very poorly placed, as the new railroad bridge completely blocks it from view until the last possible second
All I see right now is "opens in Spring, completed in Summer". I'm assuming it won't be ready anytime soon without a date there.
I assume that there are greenouts for the placement of an I-885 shield at I-85 Exit 178 and I-40 Exit 279, if those signs have been modified already.
Quote from: Henry on April 20, 2022, 11:02:06 AM
I assume that there are greenouts for the placement of an I-885 shield at I-85 Exit 178 and I-40 Exit 279, if those signs have been modified already.
According to the most recent sign plans, while the I-40 West signs will simply swap out an I-885 shield for the existing NC 147 ones, the signs on I-40 East will apparently be replaced with the ones like on the left below having both I-885 and NC 147 shields:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/nc885signplans122i40e.jpg)
The I-85 signs will probably be replaced as well as there is currently little room to add South I-885 to them, as seen on this Street View link image taken in November:
https://goo.gl/maps/vjDu546PhPsrFqNS9 (https://goo.gl/maps/vjDu546PhPsrFqNS9)
Quote from: cowboy_wilhelm on March 14, 2022, 10:47:27 AM
Bridge demo progress as of last Thursday, 3/10.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51938493620_fc4fbe815b_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51938493620_b445d39802_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51937955653_12eac375f6_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51937955653_cc036a8d2c_k.jpg)
About time! :clap:
as of Thursday 4/28, bridge demolition is complete, and a new lane has opened up to the left going westbound. The right lane becomes exit only for NC 98/US 70B exit
Still no opening date, but NCDOT says signing of I-885 (I assume where it already hasn't been and covered up) will begin next week (after AASHTO approves the route on Monday the 9th?):
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-04-final-paving-east-end-connector-i-885.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-04-final-paving-east-end-connector-i-885.aspx)
night-time paving work has commenced between the NC 98 exit and I-85. The third lane westbound is slowly getting longer.
Taking a look at the traffic cameras in the vicinity of the Durham Freeway the last couple of days I could not spot any sign changes taking place. This did not prevent NCDOT from updating their traffic map, however:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885onncdottrafficmap51122.jpg)
I-885 is now signed alongside US 70 at I-85
I will see if it is signed from I-40 tomorrow, though I doubt it is
Quote from: fillup420 on May 18, 2022, 08:58:06 PM
I-885 is now signed alongside US 70 at I-85
I will see if it is signed from I-40 tomorrow, though I doubt it is
Some progress to report, thanks. From looking at the I-40 West traffic camera at Davis Drive Wed. night, it appears (in the distance) that the Durham Freeway is still signed as NC 147. Another camera showed that the pull through sign for Toll NC 147 South at NC 54 had not been changed as of the afternoon of May 19, same for the advance sign for (now) NC 147 Toll at the NC 55 exit on NC 540 East. So it sounds like the sign updating is going from north to south, slowly.
Quote from: fillup420 on May 18, 2022, 08:58:06 PM
I-885 is now signed alongside US 70 at I-85
I will see if it is signed from I-40 tomorrow, though I doubt it is
It's not. When through there yesterday, area still reads NC 147.
While waiting for NCDOT to actually attach a map of upcoming I-885 route and exit number changes that was indicated as attached in their press release of May 4, found out that the News & Observer published a cropped version on May 7:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/I-885CorridorMapN&Ocropped5522.jpg)
Quote from: bob7374 on May 19, 2022, 04:30:19 PM
While waiting for NCDOT to actually attach a map of upcoming I-885 route and exit number changes that was indicated as attached in their press release of May 4, found out that the News & Observer published a cropped version on May 7:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/I-885CorridorMapN&Ocropped5522.jpg)
Many of the exits on the downtown section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147) have not had exit numbers since I arrived here over 20 years ago.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 20, 2022, 12:44:30 AM
Many of the exits on the downtown section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147) have not had exit numbers since I arrived here over 20 years ago.
Some do, at least. Here is the EB Swift Avenue exit (currently Exit 14):
https://goo.gl/maps/KGxQKbprN5iMuqSd7
And Chapel Hill Street, Exit 13:
https://goo.gl/maps/jqzkpkYEM4Y8UBHt6
Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 20, 2022, 12:44:30 AM
Many of the exits on the downtown section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147) have not had exit numbers since I arrived here over 20 years ago.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 20, 2022, 06:27:21 PM
Some do, at least. Here is the EB Swift Avenue exit (currently Exit 14):
https://goo.gl/maps/KGxQKbprN5iMuqSd7
And Chapel Hill Street, Exit 13:
https://goo.gl/maps/jqzkpkYEM4Y8UBHt6
If I recall correctly, even one of those did not have exit numbers before the Durham Freeway mileposts were renumbered just prior to the Triangle Expressway extension in 2011.
I-885 shields have started to appear along the soon to be open highway's path. Here on I-85 North, courtesy of David Johnson:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signsdj522a.jpg)
Other photos showing some of the new I-885 exit numbered signs, and remaining pavement work needed before the East End Connector can be opened, are at:
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
So this must be a new sign, since the airport reference is no longer there? Or perhaps modified?
Quote from: Henry on May 23, 2022, 03:42:34 PM
So this must be a new sign, since the airport reference is no longer there? Or perhaps modified?
They probably have an additional sign on side saying it is towards the airport, but since I-885 is on there now, it makes more sense that its control city is Raleigh than US 70 to the airport.
I-885 and NC 885 shields appeared on I-40 exit signs the nights of May 24 and 25. Here's one of the eastbound signs, courtesy of Charles M. Kunz:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signscmk522a.jpg)
Other photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
It appears the rest of the sign changes south of I-40 will happen after the Memorial Day holiday, as apparently the opening of the East End Connector itself.
Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2022, 12:06:33 PM
I-885 and NC 885 shields appeared on I-40 exit signs the nights of May 24 and 25. Here's one of the eastbound signs, courtesy of Charles M. Kunz:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signscmk522a.jpg)
Other photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
It appears the rest of the sign changes south of I-40 will happen after the Memorial Day holiday, as apparently the opening of the East End Connector itself.
Instead of using "Durham Frwy", wouldn't it have made more sense to use Petersburg as the control city for I-885 North, given that the main purpose of I-885 is to connect RTP to points north of Durham?
Quote from: LM117 on May 27, 2022, 01:43:11 PM
Instead of using "Durham Frwy", wouldn't it have made more sense to use Petersburg as the control city for I-885 North, given that the main purpose of I-885 is to connect RTP to points north of Durham?
It was Durham Freeway before NC 147 existed and it still is; it is fine as is.
Also do not think Petersburg would work because from this location people are not traveling to get to Petersburg. To say in another way, if you were leaving from Cary or Raleigh, you would not travel I-40 west to meet-up with I-85 then head north, instead you would take US 1. So from here I don't see the benefit, but that is just my opinion.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 27, 2022, 03:37:54 PM
Quote from: LM117 on May 27, 2022, 01:43:11 PM
Instead of using "Durham Frwy", wouldn't it have made more sense to use Petersburg as the control city for I-885 North, given that the main purpose of I-885 is to connect RTP to points north of Durham?
It was Durham Freeway before NC 147 existed and it still is; it is fine as is.
Also do not think Petersburg would work because from this location people are not traveling to get to Petersburg. To say in another way, if you were leaving from Cary or Raleigh, you would not travel I-40 west to meet-up with I-85 then head north, instead you would take US 1. So from here I don't see the benefit, but that is just my opinion.
Technically, this's going east. (I know because I grew up in the area.) But if you're going from Chapel Hill to get to Petersburg, you'd be taking 15-501 to I-85, so there's the same difference.
And I agree; "Durham Freeway" is the name people know, so it's the name that should be used.
Quote from: LM117 on May 27, 2022, 01:43:11 PM
Instead of using "Durham Frwy", wouldn't it have made more sense to use Petersburg as the control city for I-885 North, given that the main purpose of I-885 is to connect RTP to points north of Durham?
Quote from: WashuOtaku on May 27, 2022, 03:37:54 PM
It was Durham Freeway before NC 147 existed and it still is; it is fine as is.
Also do not think Petersburg would work because from this location people are not traveling to get to Petersburg. To say in another way, if you were leaving from Cary or Raleigh, you would not travel I-40 west to meet-up with I-85 then head north, instead you would take US 1. So from here I don't see the benefit, but that is just my opinion.
Quote from: Evan_Th on May 27, 2022, 05:00:44 PM
Technically, this's going east. (I know because I grew up in the area.) But if you're going from Chapel Hill to get to Petersburg, you'd be taking 15-501 to I-85, so there's the same difference.
And I agree; "Durham Freeway" is the name people know, so it's the name that should be used.
However, "Durham Freeway" is not a control destination on the new I-885 signage. The road is called the Durham Freeway up until the new exit for NC-147, which continues as the Durham Freeway. In the Charlotte area, the highway name is often listed alongside the route shield. But in NCDOT District 5, the highway name usually pops up where you would normally put a control city or control destination on the BGS.
Quote from: LM117 on May 27, 2022, 01:43:11 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on May 27, 2022, 12:06:33 PM
I-885 and NC 885 shields appeared on I-40 exit signs the nights of May 24 and 25. Here's one of the eastbound signs, courtesy of Charles M. Kunz:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signscmk522a.jpg)
Other photos are at: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
It appears the rest of the sign changes south of I-40 will happen after the Memorial Day holiday, as apparently the opening of the East End Connector itself.
Instead of using "Durham Frwy", wouldn't it have made more sense to use Petersburg as the control city for I-885 North, given that the main purpose of I-885 is to connect RTP to points north of Durham?
What surprises me is that there's no TO 85 next to TO 147.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 27, 2022, 10:33:05 PM
What surprises me is that there's no TO 85 next to TO 147.
The route will be used by mostly local people, so just like there is not "Petersburg," there is no I-85... though most people generally know that 3-digit interstates are auxiliary of a parent route and would there for cross it... unless its I-585.
While still waiting for the opening of East End Connector portion of I-885, here's a photo of the new signage on I-40 West at the Durham Freeway exit, courtesy of David Johnson:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signsdj622c.jpg)
More of his photos along I-40 and I-85 can be found at (little has been changed on the Durham Freeway itself yet):
https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
as of today, lines are painted on the new sections of roadway, as far as I could see from US 70....
getting closer....
Have any of the exits along NC 147 or US 70 been renumbered yet? If not, is there a date for when they will be renumbered?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:30:24 PM
Have any of the exits along NC 147 or US 70 been renumbered yet? If not, is there a date for when they will be renumbered?
the US 70 exits have been renumbered
Quote from: fillup420 on June 06, 2022, 06:52:40 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:30:24 PM
Have any of the exits along NC 147 or US 70 been renumbered yet? If not, is there a date for when they will be renumbered?
the US 70 exits have been renumbered
The new numbers are: US 70 Bus./NC 98 Exit 11, Cheek Road Exit 12 and I-85/US 15 (NB) Exit 13. Last week they removed the old gore sign for Cheek Road SB and uncovered the Exit 12 version that was put in last year. Meanwhile, a look at NC 540 traffic cameras this morning showed no changes in the signs along that highway.
Thursday morning, 6/9 westbound/northbound.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52137038088_3b6af13e31_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52137038088_507c30485c_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52137016211_c092911481_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52137016211_f2c285da64_o.jpg)
^^^^^
Anyone have any idea what the yellow banner on the top right in the first image says?
Quote from: 1995hoo on June 10, 2022, 08:50:17 PM
^^^^^
Anyone have any idea what the yellow banner on the top right in the first image says?
EXIT 40 MPH
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2014%20Highway%20Letting/11-18-14/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Durham%20U-0071%20C203394/Roadway/Part%20III/Signing.pdf
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 06, 2022, 06:30:24 PM
Have any of the exits along NC 147 or US 70 been renumbered yet? If not, is there a date for when they will be renumbered?
As of Saturday, I can confirm "new 147" exits have been renumbered from the 885 interchange to Swift Ave. Given the number of message signs warning of new exit numbers, I would assume it's been completed the whole way down.
Did NCDOT ever submit an I-885 application in time for AASHTO's spring meeting?
Quote from: LM117 on June 20, 2022, 08:29:26 PM
Did NCDOT ever submit an I-885 application in time for AASHTO's spring meeting?
I assume so, NCDOT announced the putting up of new I-885 signs the same week the AASHTO meeting was held. Guess we'll have to wait until such time as the applications are finally posted on the AASHTO US Route Committee site (which has not taken place as of a few minutes ago, yes, I just checked).
Quote from: bob7374 on June 21, 2022, 12:41:24 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 20, 2022, 08:29:26 PM
Did NCDOT ever submit an I-885 application in time for AASHTO's spring meeting?
I assume so, NCDOT announced the putting up of new I-885 signs the same week the AASHTO meeting was held. Guess we'll have to wait until such time as the applications are finally posted on the AASHTO US Route Committee site (which has not taken place as of a few minutes ago, yes, I just checked).
Thanks. I miss the days when AASHTO posted their minutes almost immediately after their meetings.
How much longer is it going to take for AASHTO to approve Interstate 885? We're not getting any younger, you know. At the rate they're going, by the time AASHTO does approve Interstate 885, we'll probably all be six feet under.
Quote from: LM117 on June 21, 2022, 09:23:59 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 21, 2022, 12:41:24 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 20, 2022, 08:29:26 PM
Did NCDOT ever submit an I-885 application in time for AASHTO's spring meeting?
I assume so, NCDOT announced the putting up of new I-885 signs the same week the AASHTO meeting was held. Guess we'll have to wait until such time as the applications are finally posted on the AASHTO US Route Committee site (which has not taken place as of a few minutes ago, yes, I just checked).
Thanks. I miss the days when AASHTO posted their minutes almost immediately after their meetings.
Marty Vitale was quite good at it (and also responded to email) when she was the committee secretary. Since her retirement, her replacements have been...shall we say...not as prompt.
https://twitter.com/wraltraffic/status/1539568851519692808
Maybe the Interstate 885 designation won't need to be approved by AASTHO, since it is already signposted and marked in the picture that accompanies the Twitter tweet.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 23, 2022, 12:09:16 PM
Maybe the Interstate 885 designation won't need to be approved by AASTHO, since it is already signposted and marked in the picture that accompanies the Twittert tweet.
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
A reminder to all that FHWA has final approval on Interstate designation, signage, and when segments actually become part of the Interstate system. Though they usually defer to AASHTO for what the actual number would be.
Quote from: froggie on June 23, 2022, 01:07:12 PM
A reminder to all that FHWA has final approval on Interstate designation, signage, and when segments actually become part of the Interstate system. Though they usually defer to AASHTO for what the actual number would be.
I am pretty sure NCDOT either got an approval or a pending approval with conditions (improving US 70, etc.). I do know that they would not have signed I-885 all over if they do not get an approval. I just reached out to the NCDOT representative in Durham County. Hope to hear back soon.
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
LOL, it was AASHTO that assigned the number 87 on the route.
I am sure AASHTO approved I-885, we just don't have the 2022 Spring Minutes yet is all.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
LOL, it was AASHTO that assigned the number 87 on the route.
They approved "
Future I-87" in May 2016, but they never gave approval to slap I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass afterward because NCDOT never submitted an application to them to do so. They just went straight to FHWA.
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
LOL, it was AASHTO that assigned the number 87 on the route.
They approved "Future I-87" in May 2016, but they never gave approval to slap I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass afterward because NCDOT never submitted an application to them to do so. They just went straight to FHWA.
Part of the package when they eliminated I-495 in the 2017 Spring Meeting.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 03:13:05 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
LOL, it was AASHTO that assigned the number 87 on the route.
They approved "Future I-87" in May 2016, but they never gave approval to slap I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass afterward because NCDOT never submitted an application to them to do so. They just went straight to FHWA.
Part of the package when they eliminated I-495 in the 2017 Spring Meeting.
I-87 was approved to be signed in December 2016 (http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_12_22.pdf).
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 12:14:14 PM
If I-87 signs on the Knightdale Bypass are any indication, then that may well be true (assuming no request for I-885 was sent to AASHTO last month). AASHTO never got a request for I-87, either.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 02:45:38 PM
LOL, it was AASHTO that assigned the number 87 on the route.
Quote from: LM117 on June 23, 2022, 03:13:05 PM
They approved "Future I-87" in May 2016, but they never gave approval to slap I-87 shields on the Knightdale Bypass afterward because NCDOT never submitted an application to them to do so. They just went straight to FHWA.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 23, 2022, 03:56:40 PM
Part of the package when they eliminated I-495 in the 2017 Spring Meeting.
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 23, 2022, 04:01:09 PM
I-87 was approved to be signed in December 2016 (http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2016_12_22.pdf).
I-87 falls into a different category. The entire route between Raleigh and Norfolk has Congressional authorization as part of the Interstate system, and when NCDOT requested I-46 it got slapped down by AASHTO who handed them a weird number to use. Part of that route was already in the Interstate system, so they didn't need FHWA approval to slap up signs (as long as FHWA funding wasn't in play) and they didn't need further AASHTO approval (because they already said so). So there is still the question about slapping up I-87 signs of that section of US-64/US-264 Knightdale Bypass east of I-540, which had not been signed as I-495. Not sure why I-495 was truncated to I-540 in the first place, since the Knightdale Bypass was designed as part of the Interstate system to begin with, but I don't see where FHWA or AASHTO needs to be involved when NCDOT is spending its own moneys on signage.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 04:49:56 PM
but I don't see where FHWA or AASHTO needs to be involved when NCDOT is spending its own moneys on signage.
FHWA is still involved because it's a project on the Interstate system, even if it's not funded by Federal funds distributed by FHWA. A lot of FHWA-state DOT correspondence happens that is not often made public.
WRAL just posted a video of the aerial flyover of I-885 in advance of next week's ribbon cutting.
https://www.wral.com/sneak-peek-first-cars-will-begin-driving-next-week-on-east-end-connector-in-durham/20345253/
Quote from: Dirt Roads on June 23, 2022, 08:55:40 PM
WRAL just posted a video of the aerial flyover of I-885 in advance of next week's ribbon cutting.
https://www.wral.com/sneak-peek-first-cars-will-begin-driving-next-week-on-east-end-connector-in-durham/20345253/ (https://www.wral.com/sneak-peek-first-cars-will-begin-driving-next-week-on-east-end-connector-in-durham/20345253/)
Sweet, thanks for the link.
Well, there you go. Looks like we got an approval for I-885 which seemed to be done behind the closed doors. I reached out to one of the reps, and here is what I was told:
Sent By: Contact Us AdministratorDate/Time: 6/24/2022 1:02:26 PM
Comment:This is in reference to your contact us inquiry concerning Interstate 885 and if approved by FHWA or AASHTO. The proposed route of I-885 is considered a loop. Connecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number. These routes are designated with the number of the main route (in this case I-85) and an even-numbered prefix. Since the proposed segment connects to an interstate on both ends it is considered a loop with an even-numbered prefix (I-885). AASHTO has the approving authority on Interstate and US route numbers. This is done through an application process. AASHTO route numbering committee meets twice a year to review and approve Interstate and US route changes for the United States. AASHTO has approved the route number of I-885 and FHWA has approved the roadway addition to the Interstate system.
Thank you,
(I do not put who responded to my email due to security reasons)
State Signing and Delineation Engineer
Mobility and Safety Division, Signing and Delineation Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
It took them long enough to both approve the 885 designation and to complete the East End Connector.
Today is the day:
https://www.wral.com/durhams-east-end-connector-to-open-to-drivers-this-afternoon/20354564/ (https://www.wral.com/durhams-east-end-connector-to-open-to-drivers-this-afternoon/20354564/)
Quote from: bob7374 on June 30, 2022, 09:01:25 AM
Today is the day:
https://www.wral.com/durhams-east-end-connector-to-open-to-drivers-this-afternoon/20354564/ (https://www.wral.com/durhams-east-end-connector-to-open-to-drivers-this-afternoon/20354564/)
The almighty google maps has it open. Signed as 885 from 85 to 40
Google has an I-885 shield on the tolled portion between I-40 and NC-540. Is that correct?
^ That would be incorrect. Should be NC 885 south of I-40.
After 7 long years, it's FINALLY open.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-30-east-end-connector-durham-us-70.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-30-east-end-connector-durham-us-70.aspx)
Quote from: froggie on June 30, 2022, 09:25:27 AM
^ That would be incorrect. Should be NC 885 south of I-40.
Already submitted a change ticket, though who knows how seriously they take such input from the general public.
Quote from: BlueRidge on June 30, 2022, 03:45:25 PMAlready submitted a change ticket, though who knows how seriously they take such input from the general public.
I'm not sure the issue is that you are general public (perhaps you don't have enough edit-credit compared to the original change suggester?). It's google maps, which is terrible at the cartography side and they don't care enough about it to have highly competent people dealing with corrections.
I've done a few corrections that haven't stuck because they've fallen for some pedant's joke and haven't the knowledge to understand what's wrong. Something like "no it's NC885 not I-885" is likely going to be similar - if a human checks it, they aren't going to have the understanding enough to think its a mistake enough to not have the status quo (or worse, not see the difference).
I clinched I-885 North today; it was pretty underwhelming. Considering most of the route is on existing roadway... The new section is nice, I can't believe it took 6 years to build it.
I'll be checking it out this weekend.
There are some stubs at NC 885/old NC 147's southern terminus at NC 540. If I remember the NC 147 Wikipedia page correctly (it has been altered, with no exit information on Interstate/NC 885 south of the East End Connector), the stubs will become a connector road to McCrimmon Parkway. Does this connector road have a construction date, and will it be part of NC 885?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2022, 01:09:59 PM
There are some stubs at NC 885/old NC 147's southern terminus at NC 540. If I remember the NC 147 Wikipedia page correctly (it has been altered, with no exit information on Interstate/NC 885 south of the East End Connector), the stubs will become a connector road to McCrimmon Parkway. Does this connector road have a construction date, and will it be part of NC 885?
May be of little help, but here's NCDOT's page on this very project: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc-147-extension/Pages/project-history.aspx
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2022, 01:09:59 PM
There are some stubs at NC 885/old NC 147's southern terminus at NC 540. If I remember the NC 147 Wikipedia page correctly (it has been altered, with no exit information on Interstate/NC 885 south of the East End Connector), the stubs will become a connector road to McCrimmon Parkway. Does this connector road have a construction date, and will it be part of NC 885?
This is project U5966 and the current STIP map (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/Pages/stip-projects-map.aspx) shows right of way for 2028.
The draft 2024 STIP map (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=5a53d23bc9e544238f0caa0ef8f526fc&extent=-84.2229%2c33.091%2c-75.5601%2c37.3085) also shows 2028 ROW but does say 2030 for construction start. Estimated cost is $91M.
Both refer to this as "new route" which doesn't mean it will or will not be a primary route. It does say the project is Turnpike Authority.
Quote from: fillup420 on June 30, 2022, 09:24:09 PM
I clinched I-885 North today; it was pretty underwhelming. Considering most of the route is on existing roadway... The new section is nice, I can't believe it took 6 years to build it.
The official NCDOT press release on the opening:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-30-east-end-connector-durham-us-70.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-30-east-end-connector-durham-us-70.aspx)
I've posted new photos taken along the opened East End Connector by David Johnson:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signsdj722w.jpg)
Along with new signage on the Durham Freeway, which unfortunately includes this:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signsdj722m.jpg)
On my New I-885 in NC webpage: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html#photos)
5A/5B was poorly signed even before this mishap. The overheads lead you to believe the roadway was ending and your options were 40 East and 40 West. Once the Toll 885 sign is moved, it will be an improvement.
Quote from: BlueRidge on July 03, 2022, 10:11:35 AM
5A/5B was poorly signed even before this mishap. The overheads lead you to believe the roadway was ending and your options were 40 East and 40 West. Once the Toll 885 sign is moved, it will be an improvement.
On the topic of this exit, shouldn't A and B switch? Exit numbers count down on 885, and A comes before B. Seems backwards to me.
Quote from: fillup420 on August 02, 2022, 03:47:24 PM
Quote from: BlueRidge on July 03, 2022, 10:11:35 AM
5A/5B was poorly signed even before this mishap. The overheads lead you to believe the roadway was ending and your options were 40 East and 40 West. Once the Toll 885 sign is moved, it will be an improvement.
On the topic of this exit, shouldn't A and B switch? Exit numbers count down on 885, and A comes before B. Seems backwards to me.
I thought A meant EB and B meant WB, and presumably A would be before B (which is the case on NC 885 NB).
Quote from: fillup420 on August 02, 2022, 03:47:24 PM
Quote from: BlueRidge on July 03, 2022, 10:11:35 AM
5A/5B was poorly signed even before this mishap. The overheads lead you to believe the roadway was ending and your options were 40 East and 40 West. Once the Toll 885 sign is moved, it will be an improvement.
On the topic of this exit, shouldn't A and B switch? Exit numbers count down on 885, and A comes before B. Seems backwards to me.
The order is based on crossroad location, not ramp location. The EB roadway comes before the WB roadway when going north. So EB is A and WB is B.
Quote from: bob7374 on July 02, 2022, 11:06:20 PMAlong with new signage on the Durham Freeway, which unfortunately includes this:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i885signsdj722m.jpg)
Jesus wept.
Has the Interstate 885 (and NC 885) designation been approved (and recognized) by AASHTO yet? If it hasn't, I'd say waiting any longer would be unnecessary.
^
Quote from: Strider on June 24, 2022, 02:33:50 PM
Well, there you go. Looks like we got an approval for I-885 which seemed to be done behind the closed doors. I reached out to one of the reps, and here is what I was told:
Sent By: Contact Us AdministratorDate/Time: 6/24/2022 1:02:26 PM
Comment:This is in reference to your contact us inquiry concerning Interstate 885 and if approved by FHWA or AASHTO. The proposed route of I-885 is considered a loop. Connecting Interstate routes and full or partial circumferential beltways around or within urban areas carry a three-digit number. These routes are designated with the number of the main route (in this case I-85) and an even-numbered prefix. Since the proposed segment connects to an interstate on both ends it is considered a loop with an even-numbered prefix (I-885). AASHTO has the approving authority on Interstate and US route numbers. This is done through an application process. AASHTO route numbering committee meets twice a year to review and approve Interstate and US route changes for the United States. AASHTO has approved the route number of I-885 and FHWA has approved the roadway addition to the Interstate system.
Thank you,
(I do not put who responded to my email due to security reasons)
State Signing and Delineation Engineer
Mobility and Safety Division, Signing and Delineation Unit
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Google Streetview has new images of I-885 along former NC-147, as well as the southbound side of the new connector section.
I worked in taking Interstate 885 north on our way to Delaware for Christmas, then took it again southbound on the way back. So with that I was able to shoot both directions with the exception of a couple signs at the south end. Posted photos to the site yesterday:
https://www.aaroads.com/guides/i-885-nc/
We took "I-885" for the first time last night, driving its full length southbound, and then used the Durham Freeway portion again today after a trip to visit my old haunts at Duke University. Certainly makes connecting down to I-40 from I-85 substantially easier than it used to be. It felt like the Durham Freeway now carries a lot more traffic than it used to, at least on the part south of the new connector (the part near Duke was as empty as ever) and I find myself wondering when they'll need to add a lane to each side.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2023, 04:25:16 PM
It felt like the Durham Freeway now carries a lot more traffic than it used to, at least on the part south of the new connector (the part near Duke was as empty as ever) and I find myself wondering when they'll need to add a lane to each side.
All of the freeways in the Triangle are much busier. But an unintended consequence of I-885 is that it has opened up development along the I-85 corridor northeast of Durham, bringing new traffic that chokes off RTP-bound traffic from the western section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147). Before construction of I-885, it was an equal bet timewise to get from the I-85/I-40 Split over to RTP on either I-40 or I-85/NC-147. That will probably never happen during rush hour ever again, even during the I-40 widening project in Orange County.
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2023, 04:25:16 PM
It felt like the Durham Freeway now carries a lot more traffic than it used to, at least on the part south of the new connector (the part near Duke was as empty as ever) and I find myself wondering when they'll need to add a lane to each side.
The last update to the Draft 2024-2033 STIP I have has a project to widen the Durham Freeway from I-40 to the East End Connector starting in 2028. IIRC, originally it was to start this year or next before being delayed. Perhaps changes in traffic patterns you cite will move it up again.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 18, 2023, 09:49:32 PM
All of the freeways in the Triangle are much busier. But an unintended consequence of I-885 is that it has opened up development along the I-85 corridor northeast of Durham, bringing new traffic that chokes off RTP-bound traffic from the western section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147). Before construction of I-885, it was an equal bet timewise to get from the I-85/I-40 Split over to RTP on either I-40 or I-85/NC-147. That will probably never happen during rush hour ever again, even during the I-40 widening project in Orange County.
fixed quote
- Alex
Quote from: bob7374 on February 19, 2023, 10:57:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2023, 04:25:16 PM
It felt like the Durham Freeway now carries a lot more traffic than it used to, at least on the part south of the new connector (the part near Duke was as empty as ever) and I find myself wondering when they'll need to add a lane to each side.
The last update to the Draft 2024-2033 STIP I have has a project to widen the Durham Freeway from I-40 to the East End Connector starting in 2028. IIRC, originally it was to start this year or next before being delayed. Perhaps changes in traffic patterns you cite will move it up again.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 18, 2023, 09:49:32 PM
All of the freeways in the Triangle are much busier. But an unintended consequence of I-885 is that it has opened up development along the I-85 corridor northeast of Durham, bringing new traffic that chokes off RTP-bound traffic from the western section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147). Before construction of I-885, it was an equal bet timewise to get from the I-85/I-40 Split over to RTP on either I-40 or I-85/NC-147. That will probably never happen during rush hour ever again, even during the I-40 widening project in Orange County.
Looking at the rush hour traffic conditions, it sure seems like I-885 needs six lanes between I-40 and the East End connector, as there are backups in both directions approaching the four-lane section. That is the logical result now that you have 8+ lanes of traffic flowing on to that segment from both directions. I was surprised to find it does not already have six lanes, but then again it was obviously not a priority before the connector was complete.
I'm curious to know how it stacks up volume-wise, has NCDOT done any volume studies on that section since the completion of the East End Connector?
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 18, 2023, 09:49:32 PM
All of the freeways in the Triangle are much busier. But an unintended consequence of I-885 is that it has opened up development along the I-85 corridor northeast of Durham, bringing new traffic that chokes off RTP-bound traffic from the western section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147). Before construction of I-885, it was an equal bet timewise to get from the I-85/I-40 Split over to RTP on either I-40 or I-85/NC-147. That will probably never happen during rush hour ever again, even during the I-40 widening project in Orange County.
Quote from: webny99 on March 14, 2023, 06:19:24 PM
Looking at the rush hour traffic conditions, it sure seems like I-885 needs six lanes between I-40 and the East End connector, as there are backups in both directions approaching the four-lane section. That is the logical result now that you have 8+ lanes of traffic flowing on to that segment from both directions. I was surprised to find it does not already have six lanes, but then again it was obviously not a priority before the connector was complete.
I'm curious to know how it stacks up volume-wise, has NCDOT done any volume studies on that section since the completion of the East End Connector?
The outline of the East End Connector (middle portion of I-885) is now shown on the NCDOT AADT Map (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4), but the linkage is not yet shown and there is no data available. The most recent AADT for the Durham Freeway portion is from 2020 and the most recent for the US-70 Freeway portion.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on March 14, 2023, 09:08:59 PM
The outline of the East End Connector (middle portion of I-885) is now shown on the NCDOT AADT Map (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4), but the linkage is not yet shown and there is no data available. The most recent AADT for the Durham Freeway portion is from 2020 and the most recent for the US-70 Freeway portion.
Interesting. The AADT was already in the 70k range even before the East End Connector, which is enough to warrant six lanes even in an urban area. So there's no question it needs it badly now and that explains the frequent congestion there.
Quote from: webny99 on March 14, 2023, 06:19:24 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on February 19, 2023, 10:57:36 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on February 18, 2023, 04:25:16 PM
It felt like the Durham Freeway now carries a lot more traffic than it used to, at least on the part south of the new connector (the part near Duke was as empty as ever) and I find myself wondering when they'll need to add a lane to each side.
The last update to the Draft 2024-2033 STIP I have has a project to widen the Durham Freeway from I-40 to the East End Connector starting in 2028. IIRC, originally it was to start this year or next before being delayed. Perhaps changes in traffic patterns you cite will move it up again.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on February 18, 2023, 09:49:32 PM
All of the freeways in the Triangle are much busier. But an unintended consequence of I-885 is that it has opened up development along the I-85 corridor northeast of Durham, bringing new traffic that chokes off RTP-bound traffic from the western section of the Durham Freeway (NC-147). Before construction of I-885, it was an equal bet timewise to get from the I-85/I-40 Split over to RTP on either I-40 or I-85/NC-147. That will probably never happen during rush hour ever again, even during the I-40 widening project in Orange County.
Looking at the rush hour traffic conditions, it sure seems like I-885 needs six lanes between I-40 and the East End connector, as there are backups in both directions approaching the four-lane section. That is the logical result now that you have 8+ lanes of traffic flowing on to that segment from both directions. I was surprised to find it does not already have six lanes, but then again it was obviously not a priority before the connector was complete.
I'm curious to know how it stacks up volume-wise, has NCDOT done any volume studies on that section since the completion of the East End Connector?
The 2022 AADT maps should be available late summer. Don't know if separate data has been collected. There is the constant automated system data from the various data companies (don't recall which company has the current contract, INRIX, HERE or somebody else.)
The NB Durham Freeway traffic started bogging down once NC 147 (now NC 885) was extended as part of the Triangle Expressway toll project. The road goes from three to two at TW Alexander, and it bogs down during both AM and PM peaks. It opens up speed-wise north of Ellis Road, and the two freeway segments (NC 147 and I-885) flow well during most periods. Going to the west, I-85 is a problem where NC 147 merges in, mostly in the evening peak. (There is a project to widen I-85 from NC 147 to US 70 in Orange County.)
SB, the problem at the NC 147/I-885 merge was identified early, but the "solution", the widening between there and I-40, has been delayed, and the Durham MPO wanted to cancel the project (their position is that Durham people should walk or take transit, so they won't support "new lanes or roads".) That, plus the funding issues that NCDOT has had, pushed the project further out. If it actually gets funded/bid in 2028 I'd consider it lucky (I'm not holding my breath sitting at home ~two miles away.)
If I have to head west to Burlington or further from the Brier Creek area in Durham, I'll take I-40 (slightly shorter) most of the time, but both flow fine. During the PM peak, I think the I-885/NC 147/I-85 route, as the TW Alexander lane drop isn't too bad, and the I-85 merge is less a problem (I think) than the I-40 lane drop at US 15-501. At night, take 85/147/885, as they have frequent lane closures on I-40 for the widening project. (At least, that was how it was driving home from the ACC Tournaments (men's and women's) the past two weeks.)
Quote from: jdunlop on March 15, 2023, 12:24:15 PM
If I have to head west to Burlington or further from the Brier Creek area in Durham, I'll take I-40 (slightly shorter) most of the time, but both flow fine. During the PM peak, I think the I-885/NC 147/I-85 route, as the TW Alexander lane drop isn't too bad, and the I-85 merge is less a problem (I think) than the I-40 lane drop at US 15-501. At night, take 85/147/885, as they have frequent lane closures on I-40 for the widening project. (At least, that was how it was driving home from the ACC Tournaments (men's and women's) the past two weeks.)
It looks like nighttime closures on I-40 in Orange County are going to be the norm throughout this Spring and Summer. Just be forewarned about using the Durham Freeway (NC-147) near the ending of some close Durham Bulls games. It's only a few minutes longer to stay on I-85 and hit I-885 the whole rest of the way.
^ Sort of related to NC-885... does NCDOT ever foresee going to have to construct a flyover from NC-885 North to I-40 West? Particularly as the NC-540 beltway is complete down to I-40 / US-70, I see there being increased demand by those cities along the new beltway, along with long distance traffic bypassing Raleigh, using NC-885 to connect back with I-40 West.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 15, 2023, 01:41:07 PM
^ Sort of related to NC-885... does NCDOT ever foresee going to have to construct a flyover from NC-885 North to I-40 West? Particularly as the NC-540 beltway is complete down to I-40 / US-70, I see there being increased demand by those cities along the new beltway, along with long distance traffic bypassing Raleigh, using NC-885 to connect back with I-40 West.
I recall that was discussed when the toll road was being planned, but the less expensive option was chosen as adequate at the time. Certainly, if volume warrants, I could see one in the future.
An auxiliary lane project from 885 to NC 55 on 40WB is to be let relatively soon, and that will help that movement.
Also, a SB 885 "Fly Under" is planned as part of the 885 widening project. The current plans call for realigning I-40 EB to move close to the WB lanes, to allow 885 to enter from the right of 40. That'll allow two lanes again from 885 to 40, and reduce weaving significantly.
Quote from: jdunlop on March 15, 2023, 12:24:15 PM
If I have to head west to Burlington or further from the Brier Creek area in Durham, I'll take I-40 (slightly shorter) most of the time, but both flow fine. During the PM peak, I think the I-885/NC 147/I-85 route, as the TW Alexander lane drop isn't too bad, and the I-85 merge is less a problem (I think) than the I-40 lane drop at US 15-501. At night, take 85/147/885, as they have frequent lane closures on I-40 for the widening project. (At least, that was how it was driving home from the ACC Tournaments (men's and women's) the past two weeks.)
Out of curiosity, is US 70 to I-885 to I-85 a viable option? That seems like a shorter route coming from anywhere near or west of I-540/US 70, depending on what the non-freeway portion of US 70 is like.
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 10:21:25 AM
Quote from: jdunlop on March 15, 2023, 12:24:15 PM
If I have to head west to Burlington or further from the Brier Creek area in Durham, I'll take I-40 (slightly shorter) most of the time, but both flow fine. During the PM peak, I think the I-885/NC 147/I-85 route, as the TW Alexander lane drop isn't too bad, and the I-85 merge is less a problem (I think) than the I-40 lane drop at US 15-501. At night, take 85/147/885, as they have frequent lane closures on I-40 for the widening project. (At least, that was how it was driving home from the ACC Tournaments (men's and women's) the past two weeks.)
Out of curiosity, is US 70 to I-885 to I-85 a viable option? That seems like a shorter route coming from anywhere near or west of I-540/US 70, depending on what the non-freeway portion of US 70 is like.
Peak hour, the signals would be a pain. But the shorter distance might win in off-peak. Just checked Google Maps, and now mid-morning, it recommends US 70 rather than continuing to 885, starting on I-540 east of 70. But it's a minute difference. I'd probably do it because it's four miles shorter.
So, shorter answer is: Yes it's a viable alternative.
Quote from: jdunlop on March 15, 2023, 12:24:15 PM
If I have to head west to Burlington or further from the Brier Creek area in Durham, I'll take I-40 (slightly shorter) most of the time, but both flow fine. During the PM peak, I think the I-885/NC 147/I-85 route, as the TW Alexander lane drop isn't too bad, and the I-85 merge is less a problem (I think) than the I-40 lane drop at US 15-501. At night, take 85/147/885, as they have frequent lane closures on I-40 for the widening project. (At least, that was how it was driving home from the ACC Tournaments (men's and women's) the past two weeks.)
Quote from: webny99 on March 16, 2023, 10:21:25 AM
Out of curiosity, is US 70 to I-885 to I-85 a viable option? That seems like a shorter route coming from anywhere near or west of I-540/US 70, depending on what the non-freeway portion of US 70 is like.
Quote from: jdunlop on March 16, 2023, 11:25:36 AM
Peak hour, the signals would be a pain. But the shorter distance might win in off-peak. Just checked Google Maps, and now mid-morning, it recommends US 70 rather than continuing to 885, starting on I-540 east of 70. But it's a minute difference. I'd probably do it because it's four miles shorter.
So, shorter answer is: Yes it's a viable alternative.
Indeed. I've used this route frequently for many years, even back when we sure I-885 would never happen. Coming from Hillsborough proper, it was historically the best route (off-peak) to head due east (ergo, Greenville or New Bern/Morehead City) by jumping on eastbound I-540 and then US-64/US-264 (mostly future I-87) and beyond. From beyond Hillsborough, I-40 usually works better (but the accidents in the I-40 construction zone in Orange County are on the rise in the off-peak).
Because of the backwards rush hour in the Triangle, I would generally avoid US-70 (Miami Boulevard/Glenwood Avenue) during both rush hour windows.
NCDOT finally got around to approving the ordinance replacing NC 147 with NC 885 between I-40 and NC 540 earlier this month on March 6:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2023/2023_03_06.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2023/2023_03_06.pdf)
Based on the timeline at the end of the document it appears the replacement was first proposed in July 2020.
Maybe we should drop the "New" from the subject title, since it's been an official designation since June 30th of last year.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:30:10 PM
Maybe we should drop the "New" from the subject title, since it's been an official designation since June 30th of last year.
It's still new relative to pretty much everything else around there.
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2023, 07:41:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:30:10 PM
Maybe we should drop the "New" from the subject title, since it's been an official designation since June 30th of last year.
It's still new relative to pretty much everything else around there.
Bob7374 named the thread when he launched it. That was in August 2014, which reminds us how agonizingly long it took to build this road.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:30:10 PM
Maybe we should drop the "New" from the subject title, since it's been an official designation since June 30th of last year.
No.
Quote from: wdcrft63 on March 28, 2023, 05:58:26 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 28, 2023, 07:41:16 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 23, 2023, 12:30:10 PM
Maybe we should drop the "New" from the subject title, since it's been an official designation since June 30th of last year.
It's still new relative to pretty much everything else around there.
Bob7374 named the thread when he launched it. That was in August 2014, which reminds us how agonizingly long it took to build this road.
Well, I still call the parking garage on Emmet Street in Charlottesville the new garage where the bookstore is. It opened in 1994.
An interesting music/roads connection here:
reading the obituary today for former Ben Folds Five producer Caleb Southern...
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/caleb-southern-obituary?id=52422840&fbclid=IwAR0_4RQr-fP6rC9LNyC2Jf8BzQuso1D8l4oCiufhm3H0cXWs7YG1cshpAoo
Apparently he advocated for I-885 to be built:
"By the early 2000's, Caleb shifted his focus to local advocacy, playing a critical role in the revitalization of downtown Durham. He was a founding member of the Arts and Business Council of Downtown Durham, served as a board member of Downtown Durham, Inc., and then sat at the table as a Durham Planning Commissioner. Although he had no formal training in urban planning or public policy, Caleb devised a solution for a 35-year-old transportation problem by proposing a connector that preserved local wildlife and natural spaces, linking North Durham to the Research Triangle Park with the "East End Connector" (now called 1-885). In 2002, Caleb won a Citizen Award from the Independent Weekly Magazine for this solution."
Had something approximating the I-885 corridor existed on planning maps pre-2000?
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2023, 10:55:53 AM
An interesting music/roads connection here:
reading the obituary today for former Ben Folds Five producer Caleb Southern...
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/caleb-southern-obituary?id=52422840&fbclid=IwAR0_4RQr-fP6rC9LNyC2Jf8BzQuso1D8l4oCiufhm3H0cXWs7YG1cshpAoo
Apparently he advocated for I-885 to be built:
"By the early 2000's, Caleb shifted his focus to local advocacy, playing a critical role in the revitalization of downtown Durham. He was a founding member of the Arts and Business Council of Downtown Durham, served as a board member of Downtown Durham, Inc., and then sat at the table as a Durham Planning Commissioner. Although he had no formal training in urban planning or public policy, Caleb devised a solution for a 35-year-old transportation problem by proposing a connector that preserved local wildlife and natural spaces, linking North Durham to the Research Triangle Park with the "East End Connector" (now called 1-885). In 2002, Caleb won a Citizen Award from the Independent Weekly Magazine for this solution."
Had something approximating the I-885 corridor existed on planning maps pre-2000?
The East End Connector is shown as a dotted line on the 1962 Durham County Map.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 11, 2023, 12:03:26 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 11, 2023, 10:55:53 AM
An interesting music/roads connection here:
reading the obituary today for former Ben Folds Five producer Caleb Southern...
https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/caleb-southern-obituary?id=52422840&fbclid=IwAR0_4RQr-fP6rC9LNyC2Jf8BzQuso1D8l4oCiufhm3H0cXWs7YG1cshpAoo
Apparently he advocated for I-885 to be built:
"By the early 2000's, Caleb shifted his focus to local advocacy, playing a critical role in the revitalization of downtown Durham. He was a founding member of the Arts and Business Council of Downtown Durham, served as a board member of Downtown Durham, Inc., and then sat at the table as a Durham Planning Commissioner. Although he had no formal training in urban planning or public policy, Caleb devised a solution for a 35-year-old transportation problem by proposing a connector that preserved local wildlife and natural spaces, linking North Durham to the Research Triangle Park with the "East End Connector" (now called 1-885). In 2002, Caleb won a Citizen Award from the Independent Weekly Magazine for this solution."
Had something approximating the I-885 corridor existed on planning maps pre-2000?
The East End Connector is shown as a dotted line on the 1962 Durham County Map.
According to Wikipedia the EEC was first proposed in 1959. When the Durham Freeway was built in the early 70s the northbound and southbound lanes were spread apart in the area where the EEC would depart as a provision for the future interchange. This proved to be inadequate; when the I-885/NC 147 interchange was finally built it removed those lanes and rebuilt everything on a modern plan. But for 40+ years those separated lanes were the only indication we had that an EEC would eventually be built.
Had the full freeway not been delayed for 40 years, would it still have been designated Interstate 885? 285 was approved in 2005, 485 was approved in 1991, and 685 was only approved last year.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 11, 2023, 08:21:33 PM
Had the full freeway not been delayed for 40 years, would it still have been designated Interstate 885? 285 was approved in 2005, 485 was approved in 1991, and 685 was only approved last year.
I'm guessing that it would not have gotten a route number. The original plan was a spine between downtown Raleigh -and- downtown Durham, with a spur around the southwest side of Raleigh and a spur around the east side of Durham. The three sections that were built became the Wade Avenue Freeway, the Tom Bradshaw Freeway (I-40) and the Durham Freeway (originally all NC-147), and the East End Connector got postponed (over-and-over-and-over...). (For the record, the western portion of the Tom Bradshaw got renamed as the Dan K. Moore Freeway in 1985).
The Wade Avenue Freeway didn't get completed inside the Beltline and never got a route number (probably to discourage Durham folks from using this as the main route into downtown). Similarly, the East End Connector would have dumped onto Miami Boulevard/US-70 Bypass which would have continued to I-85 as a fourlane highway. It probably wouldn't have gotten a separate route number for a similar reason (to discourage Raleigh folks from using the EEC as a bypass of Durham).
Another article on music producer Caleb Southern's role with I-885, but contemporary to when he was more involved (2002). This specifically mentions the 1959-era roots for the project:
https://indyweek.com/guides/archives-guides/caleb-southern/
QuoteReading through old public documents on the web, Southern discovered that there used to be—still was, actually—a plan in the state highway program for something called the East End Connector. The road first appeared on the state's long-range maps in 1959, and as those who've worked with these things know, once a road gets into the long-range plan, even if it's long forgotten, nothing short of celestial intervention can get it removed. "It was the oldest unfunded highway project in North Carolina," Southern says, still smiling.
The reason Southern smiled when he discovered the connector, back in April, was that it showed up exactly where he'd already decided a road ought to go—between the Durham Freeway and U.S. 70 in East Durham at the point where the two roads are only a mile apart. Very little was in the way, Southern knew, just old industrial tracts long since abandoned. In fact, the state had acquired much of the Connector corridor years ago, only to give up and turn its attention to the west when Interstate 40 emerged and U.S. 70 receded as the major Raleigh-to-Durham link.
The reason Southern's smiling now is that the connector has won broad support in the Durham community in the seven months since. Civic leaders and elected officials have come around to the view he first expressed in a in a Herald-Sun column in May: Either the East End Connector or Eno Drive would relieve traffic congestion on I-85, a major goal of the state Department of Transportation; but where Eno Drive alone would pull development out of Durham to the north, in typical sprawl fashion, the connector would support the redevelopment of downtown Durham.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 11, 2023, 08:21:33 PM
Had the full freeway not been delayed for 40 years, would it still have been designated Interstate 885? 285 was approved in 2005, 485 was approved in 1991, and 685 was only approved last year.
Also keep in mind that there was no connection to/from US 70 and I-85 North until 2003 or thereabouts, so even if the EEC had been built 40 years earlier and received a designation, it would not likely have been an interstate.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 11, 2023, 08:21:33 PM
Had the full freeway not been delayed for 40 years, would it still have been designated Interstate 885? 285 was approved in 2005, 485 was approved in 1991, and 685 was only approved last year.
Quote from: Mapmikey on July 12, 2023, 07:38:24 AM
Also keep in mind that there was no connection to/from US 70 and I-85 North until 2003 or thereabouts, so even if the EEC had been built 40 years earlier and received a designation, it would not likely have been an interstate.
Fortunately, the development of the Brier Creek area (plus traffic to/from RDU) would have still resulted in a freeway upgrade to the US-70 Bypass (plus the needed interchange to I-85 to the north). Then the question is whether NCDOT would upgrade an older East End Connector to Interstate standards in order to get "slap happy". (Just had to throw that in for the folks who are jealous of North Carolina).