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

[CanesFan27]

I doubt proximity to existing routes is a factor in what numbers NCDOT wants; otherwise, there would be no I-74 debacle (heck, it even overlaps with US 74 at least once!).  More likely, either someone there really hates roadgeeks, or FritzOwl is their governor.

In any case, the interstates are the supreme system, so if the care to avoid duplication, they should renumber the NC route.

Was not the I-74 extension and designation legislatively done?

[mvak36]

Is NC allergic to 3dis?

No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.

Don't forget 785

[Strider]

Is NC allergic to 3dis?

No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.

Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.

Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.

I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.

As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[Jmiles32]

I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded  to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.

[broadhurst04]

I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded  to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.

I think you meant Faison.

[broadhurst04]

I don't mind the 89 designation so much, even though it does duplicate a route that already exists. Besides, NCDOT couldn't care less about numbering rules. Witness the I-540/TOLL NC 540 mess for a road that, at least at one time, would have to have had a 3 digit number with an even first digit.

I think 62 would have been a better choice for Raleigh to Norfolk.

[Strider]

I said fully completed. US. Route 29 still needs to be upgraded  to interstate standards for interstate I-785 and I-795 is about to be extended further south to I-40 near Raison.

I was not responding to your message unless you posted it. Somebody posted these interstates have not been completed yet.. that is who i am trying to respond to. But thanks for your input.

[froggie]

I still think these are too short for 2dis.

So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s.  They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...

[CanesFan27]

Is NC allergic to 3dis?

No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.

Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.

Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.

I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.

As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed.  You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.   

As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.

[MazdaStrider]

Is NC allergic to 3dis?

No, over the last 15 years our doctor prescribed I-285, 295, 840, 140, 795 and 274 and said we should be fine. He recently gave us a new drug 885 and might give us 426 to help with our allergies.

Don't forget I-785! Also for the record none these have yet to be fully completed.

Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.

I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.

As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed.  You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.   

As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.

Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.

495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)

For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.

[CanesFan27]

Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.

I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.

As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed.  You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.   

As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.

Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.

495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)

For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.

So any spur route can be completed because it doesn't have to connect to anything? Even if existing plans have it extending 30 or so miles further?  That's a very interesting definition - don't you think?

You also say - "Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route."  Well yes when and if that ever happens.  Currently, 785 is planned to go to Danville so the entire route is not completed. 

Your definition for 495 not being completed is the same reason for 785 not being completed.  It connects to an interstate (3di's aren't required to connect on both ends to a 2 digit route) So you are contradicting yourself in the post.

[Henry]

I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash.  Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40.    Also think I-89 was a poor choice.

By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!

I would've gone with I-46 as the number for the Norfolk-Raleigh route, and I-42 for the US 70 one. I also think I-89 is a dumb choice since not only is the majority of the route east-west, it's also east of I-95. But then again, NH and VT are further east than the NC coastline, so that could be excused.

OT: I-40 should've been built to at least New Bern, and the route south to Wilmington should've gotten I-97, instead of that insane Baltimore-Annapolis highway that has it now.

[MazdaStrider]

Wrong. I-785 is completed (since it is a spur route, it doesn't have to connect to another interstate.) it runs for about 3 miles as of right now, and then 7 in the future when it is extended to US 29, and then later around 45 miles once its extended to Danville, VA.

I-795 is completed and runs from I-95 south to Goldsboro.

As of the rest, you're correct.. they're not completed, but under construction. I-274 is only proposed, not approved yet.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

785 has an entire route to Danville - it's not completed.  You can argue that 495 is completed also, but it's not.   

As for others mentioning forgetting 785 - it happens - the overall point was made.

Yes, 785 has an entire route to Danville, for me that is technically completed because as an spur route, it is not required to end at an interstate. Besides it does end at the U.S. route at least for now. Then it will extend to another U.S. route. Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route.

495 is not completed because it is to connect with a 2di interstate, since it is not right now. (it ends at a 3di.)

For me, it is technically completed. we both have different opinions on what is completed, what is not.

So any spur route can be completed because it doesn't have to connect to anything? Even if existing plans have it extending 30 or so miles further?  That's a very interesting definition - don't you think?

You also say - "Even if they decide to change their mind and not extend it to Danville one day, it will still be completed because 785 is a spur route."  Well yes when and if that ever happens.  Currently, 785 is planned to go to Danville so the entire route is not completed. 

Your definition for 495 not being completed is the same reason for 785 not being completed.  It connects to an interstate (3di's aren't required to connect on both ends to a 2 digit route) So you are contradicting yourself in the post.

Like i said, we have different opinions.

[wdcrft63]

Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before.  There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).

There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.

Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.

(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36?  When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.

(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

[CanesFan27]

I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash.  Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40.    Also think I-89 was a poor choice.

By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!

I would've gone with I-46 as the number for the Norfolk-Raleigh route, and I-42 for the US 70 one. I also think I-89 is a dumb choice since not only is the majority of the route east-west, it's also east of I-95. But then again, NH and VT are further east than the NC coastline, so that could be excused.

OT: I-40 should've been built to at least New Bern, and the route south to Wilmington should've gotten I-97, instead of that insane Baltimore-Annapolis highway that has it now.

You are going to have to time travel and go back to the 1970s when the state was debating on whether to route 40 to Morehead City or Wilmington.  Hey, look I wrote something about it - and if i ever have time can expand further on it.

http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html

Let's forget about the grid - the country is not a perfect square or rectangle and we were to follow the grid how many routes would need to be changed?  (Though just take a look at the fictional highways section - and well.....)  Arguing a number because it isn't in strict compliance to the grid is a non starter as there are so many instances counter to it.  Arguing that the Raleigh to Norfolk designation should be east/west vs. north/south is a far better and more valid argument.

[CanesFan27]

Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before.  There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).

There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.

Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.

(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36?  When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.

(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

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. 

[hotdogPi]

This might be their reason: "It's north-south because it's roughly parallel to I-85 and I-85 is north-south."

[tckma]

I still think these are too short for 2dis.

So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s.  They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...

Don't forget I-97.  Not only is it a 2di within a single state, it is also less than 20 miles long and wholly within a single county!

[WashuOtaku]

I like how NCDOT took everyone's suggestion and totally threw it in the trash.  Unless they read my proposed fictional I-36 routing from I-26, via US 74, to Rockingham then US 1 to Raleigh, they should have stayed above 40.    Also think I-89 was a poor choice.

By any chance, are you the guy who once ran a website called swamphen.net? I distinctly remember seeing the I-36 routing there!

Nope, I'm just one of the peeps that updates the Wikipedia highway pages in the area. 

[hotdogPi]

I still think these are too short for 2dis.

So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s.  They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...

Don't forget I-97.  Not only is it a 2di within a single state, it is also less than 20 miles long and wholly within a single county!

He excluded it because I-2, I-97, and I-99 are Interstates some people on this forum believe should be renumbered. Nobody really has a problem with the numbers he listed except 19 (combining 17 and 19, not turning it into a 3di), 82 (due to being an even number, not due to length), and the duplicated numbers.

[LM117]

Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before.  There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).

There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.

Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.

(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36?  When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.

(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

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.

I never understood why NCDOT even bothered with the I-495 designation if the long term plan was getting a 2-digit number anyway. They've should've waited for I-89 to get approved and then put Interstate shields on the Knightdale Bypass, IMO. I also wonder why NCDOT wants I-89 to end at I-40 rather than I-440? That got my attention too. 

[MazdaStrider]

Remember that the originally discussed I-50 for the US 70 corridor may have been considered in the end a conflict with NC 50 as I (and Froggie I believe) had stated before.  There is also NC 42, which travels through Clayton (and has an interchange with US 70 in that area).

There is no NC 36, so that may be why I-36 was requested.

Two additional comments on the proposed I-36 and I-89.

(1) NC 44 is being used as a stand-in designation for the western half of the unfinished Goldsboro Bypass, which is part of the proposed I-36. That use becomes obsolete in just a few weeks when the rest of the bypass opens (it will then be numbered US 70). So: why the heck didn't NCDOT propose I-44 instead of I-36?  When they proposed I-89 they proved they don't care about duplicating an interstate number used elsewhere, and at least I-44 would fit the grid.

(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

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?

[PHLBOS]

(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? 

[kkt]

I still think these are too short for 2dis.

So I suppose you think we should also renumber I-4, I-12, I-16, I-17, I-19, I-37, I-66, I-68, I-72, I-78, I-82, I-83, the western I-86, and both I-88s.  They're all about the same mileage (or less) as these two corridors...

I don't think those routes (except maybe I-4 because it's the full width of the country at that point) should have been created as 2dis and we shouldn't create any new 2dis that short.  The 2dis, in my view, should travel across a substantial fraction of the country, not just a couple hundred miles.

However, renumbering is a lot of work, both for the DOTs involved and the general public.  If they just didn't create new short 2dis, that'd be good.

[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).