News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

North Carolina

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

dfilpus

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 27, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 09:29:57 AM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 26, 2014, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 26, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.

Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.


WashuOtaku

Quote from: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 10:16:54 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 27, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 09:29:57 AM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 26, 2014, 06:11:24 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 26, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.
Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.


Unacceptable!

dfilpus

Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.

Mapmikey

Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

WashuOtaku

#404
Quote from: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM
Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.

The Sanford Bypass is to be designated as US 421 when the final section is completed. 
From NCDOT, a colored map - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20US%20421%20Lee%20130116.pdf

However, you are also right, here is the official route change processed in August 20, 2013:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_08_20.pdf

So here is my guess, they are waiting to complete the final section and then sign the whole route all at once with US 421/NC 87 BYP.

WashuOtaku

Quote from: Mapmikey on June 28, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

Score one for Google Streetview.  I'm surprised those weren't covered.

rickmastfan67

Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?


The Nature Boy

As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.

jakeroot

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 02, 2014, 02:56:15 AM
Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?

The best part of that video is the comments section. Everyone is going on about how complicated the intersection is. I wanna chime in with my own two cents but I know it's a waste of time.

Strider

Quote from: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.




I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

WashuOtaku

Quote from: Strider on July 13, 2014, 11:01:40 AM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:

The Nature Boy

Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 14, 2014, 06:46:28 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 13, 2014, 11:01:40 AM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:

Wilmington: Getting the shaft from the state government since 1898.

andy3175

Quote from: Mapmikey on June 28, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

dfilpus

Quote from: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 01:01:27 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey on June 28, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
I 140 is signed East/West. Since NC 140 is Future I 140, it should be signed the same as I 140, so they won't have to change all of the signage when the roads connect. They just have to swap out or overlay the NC 140 shields with I 140 shields.

jcarte29

It's no different than I-40 going straight north south for it's last, say, 100 miles lol.
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

Henry

Quote from: WashuOtaku on July 14, 2014, 06:46:28 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 13, 2014, 11:01:40 AM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:
Hey, that's the routing of I-36 from Swamphen's old website!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Thing 342

US appeals panel reverses Bonner Bridge work - http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/us-appeals-panel-reverses-bonner-bridge-work/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

QuoteRALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday unanimously rejected North Carolina's plan to replace a crucial Outer Banks bridge without rerouting a state highway away from a wildlife refuge.

The dispute centers on a plan to replicate the existing 2.5-mile Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet at a cost of $216 million. The bridge is the only span connecting the mainland to Hatteras Island and was designed to last 30 years when built in 1963.

Construction has been blocked by a lawsuit by environmental groups, who favor a 17-mile bridge that would bypass the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The route favored by environmentalists would require building the second-longest bridge in the United States at a cost of more than $1 billion, state transportation officials said.

Environmentalists counter that changing the route would also help avoid recurring problems with the current road, which is frequently rendered impassable by water and sand kicked up by storms.

"At the heart of this case are the past and future of the Outer Banks,"  Judge James Wynn wrote for the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. "The effects of time threaten the structural integrity of the Bonner Bridge, while large storms and changing coastal conditions threaten the viability of the non-elevated portions of North Carolina Highway 12 south of the Bonner Bridge."

The appeals court overruled a federal judge's order last September allowing North Carolina an exception to laws protecting a wildlife refuge.

Opponents argued the state's replacement plan leaves out the cost of moving or maintaining about 12 miles of N.C. 12 through the wildlife refuge. The highway has been breached by new inlets twice in the past several years. Environmentalists said the shorter bridge will be useless without additional infrastructure construction.

The road was closed for three days early last month after waves churned by Hurricane Arthur caused a small section of the fragile roadway to buckle.

The bridge was closed for nearly two weeks in December because sand had washed away from the bridge supports. That closing led to a series of broadsides by the state's top Republican leaders against the environmental lawsuit.

Third Strike

Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/

WashuOtaku

Quote from: Third Strike on September 17, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/

It's all good stuff and a road geek wet dream, but having a vision and implementing it are two different things.  It was only a couple of Governors ago that they wanted to extend I-20 into Wilmington and now you can't find any documentation on NCDOT's website even hinting that was a plan.   :pan:

The Nature Boy

In an odd quirk of NC politics, Gov. Jim Martin campaigned on extending I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington and won.

Promising interstate highways seems to be a good campaign strategy in NC.

jcarte29

Quote from: Third Strike on September 17, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

Roadsguy

Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

Roadrunner75

Quote from: Roadsguy on September 19, 2014, 10:10:44 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
This has some information:
http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/04_Transportation.pdf

Third Strike

Quote from: jcarte29 on September 19, 2014, 06:06:05 PM
Quote from: Third Strike on September 17, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?

Yes.

NE2

Quote from: hbelkins on June 25, 2014, 10:34:51 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on June 25, 2014, 10:32:35 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/search/query.htm?Route=System&search=69
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.