NC is requesting I-36 for US 70 East Corridor and I-89 for RDU to Norfolk corr

[CanesFan27]

And I live right off of 540 and 495.  And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily.   The signing changes in the next few years will be fun. 

What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.

What is going to happen to the 2 miles of I-440 between I-40 and the future I-89? an multiplex or a truncation?

once a number is established we will know.  I think 440 will stay - you can have two routes end at the same place. 

[Mapmikey]

(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2

Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route.  Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes.  3dis are a bit more of free-for-all.  Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495? 

well routes have been renumbered before.  Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows.  It honestly doesn't bother me. 

Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process.  That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).

Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA  in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.

[mvak36]

well routes have been renumbered before.  Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows.  It honestly doesn't bother me. 

Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process.  That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).

Just throwing this out there, but could they maybe use 495 for the US264 corridor to Greenville? That way they don't have to remove the signs that are already in place out in the field. You would have concurrencies with 89 and 795.

[CanesFan27]

(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2

Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route.  Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes.  3dis are a bit more of free-for-all.  Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495? 

well routes have been renumbered before.  Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows.  It honestly doesn't bother me. 

Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process.  That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).

Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA  in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.

A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck.  I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.

[Rover_0]

The Interstate 36 designation isn't too terrible, but if I had my druthers I'd have gone with I-46. But I-89 (S) from Raleigh...yeesh. Not only is it a duplicate number, it's not even running the right direction!!

I say, number this route I-50. I don't care if it's not a major, coast-to-coast highway; it won't get any use anywhere else and doesn't cause cause any number duplication problems with US 50, being on the other end of the state.

[CanesFan27]

well routes have been renumbered before.  Remember 495 came about before the FAST Act. I just see it as hey an interesting back story. As for the N/S thing for 495 who knows.  It honestly doesn't bother me. 

Once a number is established and APPROVED - NCDOT will begin the signing request process.  That's when we will find out the fate of 495 (likely gone).

Just throwing this out there, but could they maybe use 495 for the US264 corridor to Greenville? That way they don't have to remove the signs that are already in place out in the field. You would have concurrencies with 89 and 795.

Anything is possible - I do forsee that once 64/264 is upgraded to standards to the split in Zebulon that NCDOT would ask to extend I-795 to Zebulon along 264 (it really only needs some shoulder upgrades - maybe a little more) at the same time.  As for too Greeneville - who knows 1, 3, 5, and 9 are available. 

[CanesFan27]

The Interstate 36 designation isn't too terrible, but if I had my druthers I'd have gone with I-46. But I-89 (S) from Raleigh...yeesh. Not only is it a duplicate number, it's not even running the right direction!!

I say, number this route I-50. I don't care if it's not a major, coast-to-coast highway; it won't get any use anywhere else and doesn't cause cause any number duplication problems with US 50, being on the other end of the state.

I should start a poll like we used to have on the old SEROADS Yahoo Group on whether or not AASHTO will reject 89.  Indeed, I think I shall.

[wdcrft63]

And I live right off of 540 and 495.  And commute to work on both versions of 495 daily.   The signing changes in the next few years will be fun. 

What's been overlooked in all this is that 89 is proposed to begin at Exit 301 on I-40 (Exit 16 I-440) follow I-440 until the start of the Knightdale BYpass (or start of 495) and go on from there.

What is going to happen to the 2 miles of I-440 between I-40 and the future I-89? an multiplex or a truncation?

once a number is established we will know.  I think 440 will stay - you can have two routes end at the same place.

We have a similar situation on the east side of Greensboro involving the I-840 beltway and I-785. In this case the two routes will be concurrent.

[Mapmikey]

Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA  in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.

A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck.  I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.

They did but the wayback machine has it - https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf

[WashuOtaku]

(2) On the question of whether the proposed I-89 should be seen as east-west or north-south: I agree it should be east-west, but NCDOT is already on record as viewing it as north-south: it has signed I-495 between Raleigh and Rocky Mount (it would become part of I-89 now) as north-south. Proof here:
https://goo.gl/maps/M9dvZr7v3eT2

Not sure why NCDOT considers their I-495 to be a north-south route.  Among Interstates, the odd routes being north-south and the even routes being east-west only apply to one and two-digit routes.  3dis are a bit more of free-for-all.  Given that I-495 was just recently established; why not just make the new corridor to the VA line simply an extension of I-495?

I I-495 is north-south because it does go northeasterly from I-440 to I-95, and it matches with the whole odd number north-south scheme typically done for Interstates. 

Why make the entire route into I-495 when it would need to be renumbered going into Virginia anyway?  Might as well do it sooner than later, especially when its only four miles long.

[CanesFan27]

Not to mention that NCDOT asked FHWA  in Nov 2012 to have what is now I-495 designated as I-44 first.

A couple of month's ago when working on a blog entry on the subject - I was trying to locate that request and had no luck.  I wonder if NCDOT removed it from record.

They did but the wayback machine has it - https://web.archive.org/web/20140517130607/http://www.campo-nc.us/TCC_Agenda/2013/Agenda-TCC-2013-01-03-ATT-10-Addition%20of%20I-44,%20Wake%20County.pdf

This guy probably has a nice and growing file folder on this route

[The Ghostbuster]

I'm not wild about either number, but 36 make a lot more sense than 89. And why is existing 495 signed north-south when 64 and 264 are signed east-west, which is the direction of the roadway?

[wdcrft63]

If there is an official justification for the choice of I-89 for the Raleigh to Norfolk interstate, it would probably be this post in February on the web site of Raleigh's Regional Transportation Alliance.

The use of a north-south routing is attractive for Raleigh, since this route will be Raleigh's first direct Interstate connection to I-95 north and the mid-Atlantic and northeastern states, and also for Hampton Roads, since this would be coastal Virginia's first direct Interstate connection to I-95 south.

A north-south Interstate designation would also allow both Raleigh and Hampton Roads to have both an east-west (i.e., I-40 and I-64) and north-south (e.g., I-89) primary Interstate serving their respective metro areas. In addition, a north-south designation would be consistent with the routing used by existing I-495 in Wake County – currently signed as north and south – which a new, north-south Interstate designation like I-89 would likely replace.

[CanesFan27]

I'm not wild about either number, but 36 make a lot more sense than 89. And why is existing 495 signed north-south when 64 and 264 are signed east-west, which is the direction of the roadway?

Sources tell me it's done just to keep this thread going #sources

[LM117]

Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? 

[CanesFan27]

Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? 

I was surprised they didn't do it now.  I do think they will then.  If they don't - they may wait until the section of 70 around Wilson Mills is complete as it will at least lead to some connection with I-95.

[LM117]

Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve Future I-36, what are the odds that NCDOT would send an application to AASHTO at their fall meeting to have I-36 shields posted on the Clayton and (soon to be open) Goldsboro Bypasses since they already meet Interstate standards and connect to existing interstates (I-40 in Garner and I-795 in Goldsboro)? 

I was surprised they didn't do it now.  I do think they will then.  If they don't - they may wait until the section of 70 around Wilson Mills is complete as it will at least lead to some connection with I-95.

Yeah, I was surprised about it too. You can bet the Super 70 Corridor Commission will be making some serious noise to have the shields go up if I-36 goes through.

[Thing 342]

I would like to point out that the numbers in the signs posted along these highways will have little to no effect on their usefulness or use in navigation. All the groups propping up these fantasies proposals care about is the blue and red shield.

[LM117]

I looked at NCDOT's AASHTO application again and noticed that they mentioned requesting sections of US-70 to the Interstate system as it's being upgraded, so I figured they either wanted to wait and make sure the I-36 number got approved first (in case they have to go back to the drawing board if AASHTO cans I-36) or wait until the Goldsboro Bypass opens and kill two birds with one stone since Clayton and Goldsboro are the only sections that are currently Interstate standard. Maybe a combination of both. If I-36 goes through and NC requests I-shields for Clayton and Goldsboro, I think it's very likely I-shields will go up sometime early next year, provided NCDOT sends their applications at AASHTO's next meeting. They said they would do the same for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor if I-89 got approved, so I-495 might get the heave-ho sooner rather than later. That's my best guess anyway, FWIW.

[ARMOURERERIC]

Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.

[Revive 755]

Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.

But I-36 would still have that out of place section east of Raleigh.  IMHO it would be better to start with something that fits the grid, such as I-42, (screw the duplicated state route), and then break the grid when the extension does occur.  Plus, given the proximity of the route to I-40, I think it would be better to stick with a number closer to 40 (either 38 or 42) to allow any future even 2di additions to be a better fit.

As for I-89, if they really want an odd number for the corridor, I would prefer I-91 - at least if I visualize a hidden multiplex/future extension back to the existing I-91, it looks more direct than a hidden multiplex to the southern end of the existing I-89.  Even a southern I-87 would appear better to me.

EDIT:  I see someone beat me to this in the fictional section.

[roadman65]

What happened to I-101?  Being that US 101 set the standard for US 10-1 why cannot the interstate system do the same.  Then if the eastern shore of VA and MD ever decide they want to replace US 13 with an interstate, then it would be partially done already.

If it were me and I would want to duplicate an odd number, why not use I-97?  That interstate should have never even been a 2 digit in the first place, but that would be the best candidate IMO if one is to be copied.

[wdcrft63]

Now that I actually live here, I can see a good justification for I-36 if they plan to also use it for any interstate plans they have for westward and south of Raleigh.

The only plausible interstate route westward and south of Raleigh would be along US 1, and that would be an extension of I-89, not I-36.

[PHLBOS]

I-495 is north-south because it does go northeasterly from I-440 to I-95, and it matches with the whole odd number north-south scheme typically done for Interstates. 

For Interstates; Odd number N/S, even number E/W only applies to 1 and 2-digit routes.  3-digit routes can go either way (see several examples of I-195, I-476 & I-684).  Full Loop 3dis can change cardinal directions along the way as well (see I-695 in MD).

While the corridor is somewhat diagonal; the NC stretch is more E/W rather than N/S... especially the I-440 to I-95 (near Rocky Mount) stretch.

[Zeffy]

I agrees with PHLBOS in that the route seems to be more E/W then N/S. I don't think I like I-89 being used here (besides the duplication fact), since the only portions that are truly N/S are east of Rocky Mount it seems.