AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 795 extension (NC)  (Read 40820 times)

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2990
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 04:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #125 on: February 13, 2020, 12:27:56 PM »

I missed my exit for second time in the last year going from I-40W to NC-403 (Future I-795). It would be very helpful if NCDOT added Goldsboro and “To I-795 North” to the exit signs.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/kv3hXwTyT3T95xt16
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

tjcreasy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 101
  • Location: Richmond
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 10:32:08 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #126 on: February 13, 2020, 04:48:52 PM »

I’m aware of that sign, but if you miss that sign it’s hard to tell that NC 403 Faison leads to I-795/Goldsboro. Thanks for taking the time to pull that up.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7100
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:01 AM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #127 on: February 13, 2020, 04:57:32 PM »

I’m aware of that sign, but if you miss that sign it’s hard to tell that NC 403 Faison leads to I-795/Goldsboro. Thanks for taking the time to pull that up.
Agreed, it should be on the sign.

Regardless, if you miss the exit and are bound to I-95 North, just keep going on I-40 to meet I-95 and take the original routing before I-795 was built.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #128 on: March 06, 2020, 08:04:50 PM »

http://prntscr.com/rct4w6

These are my signage ideas when the highway gets built. I can't wait to see a map so I can make a more accurate design of it.
Logged

tjcreasy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 101
  • Location: Richmond
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 10:32:08 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #129 on: March 07, 2020, 05:59:40 PM »

I like it. What do you think about replacing Rocky Mount with Richmond?
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #130 on: March 07, 2020, 06:39:17 PM »

I like it. What do you think about replacing Rocky Mount with Richmond?
Could go on the sign where Faison and Mt Olive are. But maybe I can replace the sign where it says "Rocky Mount" with Richmond.

EDIT: http://prntscr.com/rd65uq

Not perfect, but this is my guess of how the bottom extension will look like. that one ramp from 795

When looking at the two orange ramps, one is to get to NB I-795 from EB I-40, and the other is from SB I-795 to get to Clinton.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2020, 07:01:41 PM by tolbs17 »
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2990
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 04:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #131 on: March 25, 2020, 08:52:25 AM »

http://www.mountolivetribune.com/stories/town-board-flips-through-light-agenda,73394?

Quote
The Mount Olive Town Board of Commissioners approved items on a light agenda during its monthly meeting.

The Board accepted a resolution that asks the state to name the new overpass at U.S. Highway 117 Bypass and Country Club Road as the “John Richard Bell Bridge,” in memory of the late Wayne County commissioner. Also approved was a resolution that seeks state approval for pedestrian crosswalks at two locations on West Main Street.

The crosswalks are needed for safety, particularly for the town’s school children and officials say they want them at Wooten Street and Smith Chapel Road where they intersect with West Main Street.

The resolution will be forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

A resolution from Gov. Roy Cooper recognizing Mount Olive’s 150th anniversary was also accepted by the commissioners.

The Board discussed a personnel matter during its closed session.
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2990
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 04:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #132 on: April 09, 2020, 01:01:57 PM »

1243923330991828995[/tweet]][/url]
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2990
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 04:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #133 on: July 16, 2020, 03:57:19 PM »

Looks like the final vegetation work for the new Country Club Road and O'Berry Road interchanges is complete. The project is no longer listed on NCDOT's Progress Report page.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2020, 04:00:29 PM by LM117 »
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #134 on: March 26, 2021, 09:04:44 PM »

I do expect AADT to increase on I-795 once it gets extended to I-40.
Logged

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • Business route advocate

  • Location: NC 86
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 08:35:30 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #135 on: March 26, 2021, 10:21:04 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #136 on: March 26, 2021, 10:43:18 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?
Logged

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • Business route advocate

  • Location: NC 86
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 08:35:30 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #137 on: March 26, 2021, 10:51:47 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #138 on: March 26, 2021, 10:55:00 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
So, US-64/US-17 already handles the traffic from Raleigh to Norfolk and US-264 handles the traffic from Raleigh to Greenville?
Logged

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • Business route advocate

  • Location: NC 86
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 08:35:30 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #139 on: March 26, 2021, 11:00:08 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
So, US-64/US-17 already handles the traffic from Raleigh to Norfolk and US-264 handles the traffic from Raleigh to Greenville?

Yep. US 117 is different since its the upgrading of a surface highway to grade separations, and it makes sense as a cutoff route to 95 north. With 64 and 264, they are both already freeways that serve their intended purposes. There is no good reason to waste money to change the number when it adds no benefit to the common motorist.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #140 on: March 26, 2021, 11:04:14 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
So, US-64/US-17 already handles the traffic from Raleigh to Norfolk and US-264 handles the traffic from Raleigh to Greenville?

Yep. US 117 is different since its the upgrading of a surface highway to grade separations, and it makes sense as a cutoff route to 95 north. With 64 and 264, they are both already freeways that serve their intended purposes. There is no good reason to waste money to change the number when it adds no benefit to the common motorist.
Well, ok.
Logged

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2990
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 04:45:57 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #141 on: March 26, 2021, 11:24:36 PM »

Doesn't look like there's gonna be any more upgrades for quite a while. According to NCDOT's US-117 Corridor page, all preliminary engineering activities have been put on hold. The page was last updated October 15, 2020.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-117-goldsboro/Pages/default.aspx
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #142 on: March 26, 2021, 11:27:23 PM »

Doesn't look like there's gonna be any more upgrades for quite a while. According to NCDOT's US-117 Corridor page, all preliminary engineering activities have been put on hold. The page was last updated October 15, 2020.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-117-goldsboro/Pages/default.aspx
That sucks >:( So it will be pushed back into probably 2030 or something.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7100
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:01 AM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #143 on: March 26, 2021, 11:36:03 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
Opinion on it or not, they are going to be the primary designations when upgrades on both corridors are complete.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7100
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:01 AM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #144 on: March 26, 2021, 11:37:23 PM »

With 64 and 264, they are both already freeways that serve their intended purposes. There is no good reason to waste money to change the number when it adds no benefit to the common motorist.
I-87 would serve as a single, continuous corridor between two metropolitan areas of over 1 million population, along what today is currently two signed highways - US-64 and US-17.

Having a uniform designation is beneficial to the average motorist in this case.

I-587... debatable, but would solidify that the corridor between I-95 and Raleigh to Greenville is an interstate highway, not some arterial surface route.
Logged

fillup420

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 409
  • Business route advocate

  • Location: NC 86
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 08:35:30 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #145 on: March 26, 2021, 11:41:25 PM »

Once 795 is extended to I-40, US 117 should be decommissioned and replaced with NC 132 from Castle Hayne to Calypso. Shipyard Blvd in Wilmington can just become secondary. US 117 is already a pretty useless designation as it stands now.
How about US-264? They should do the same thing maybe?

Nah, both I-87 and 587 designations are pointless. They should be left as is.
Opinion on it or not, they are going to be the primary designations when upgrades on both corridors are complete.

The same could be said about "future" I-74 along US 74, which has been that way for over 20 years. NC DOT should either get on with it, or wait until its all done and then sign it all at once.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #146 on: April 08, 2021, 05:20:15 PM »

http://prntscr.com/117mc6w

This is why the I-795 project south of Goldsboro is more important compared to other projects.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7100
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:01 AM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #147 on: April 08, 2021, 05:21:27 PM »

http://prntscr.com/117mc6w

This is why the I-795 project south of Goldsboro is more important compared to other projects.
Specifically a bypass of that area, not the entire corridor. Also, it shows there’s an accident which could cause unusual levels of congestion.
Logged

tolbs17

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3440
  • Age: 19
  • Location: Greenville, NC
  • Last Login: December 02, 2021, 11:15:56 PM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #148 on: April 08, 2021, 05:23:11 PM »

http://prntscr.com/117mc6w

This is why the I-795 project south of Goldsboro is more important compared to other projects.
Specifically a bypass of that area, not the entire corridor. Also, it shows there’s an accident which could cause unusual levels of congestion.
Yes, but still, can the project be done in phases if not all at once?
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7100
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 07:16:01 AM
Re: Interstate 795 extension (NC)
« Reply #149 on: April 08, 2021, 05:25:42 PM »

http://prntscr.com/117mc6w

This is why the I-795 project south of Goldsboro is more important compared to other projects.
Specifically a bypass of that area, not the entire corridor. Also, it shows there’s an accident which could cause unusual levels of congestion.
Yes, but still, can the project be done in phases if not all at once?
The bypass is likely the first phase, tying into the recently complete freeway segment (due to the two interchanges added) south of there. Anything south of Mt. Olive to I-40 will likely be last since it’s already a 55 mph (should be 60 mph) expressway.
Logged

 


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.