North Carolina

[froggie]

If you have time to go to and thumb through a Greensboro library, the two relevant years for planning purposes were 1967 and 1977.

[NE2]

If you have time to go to and thumb through a Greensboro library, the two relevant years for planning purposes were 1967 and 1977.

The bridges are dated 1967, so there has to be an older plan.

[OracleUsr]

It's funny, I lived in Greensboro for fifteen years before starting college (and my parents lived there for another fifteen) and never knew about Murrow Blvd's history at that T-intersection.

I guess my roadgeeking interests weren't around as long as I thought.

[orulz]

Every time I go to Greensboro (Admittedly not that often) I am astonished by how many arterial grade separations, interchanges, and small-scale expressways there are in the central part of the city. Like Murrow, O'Henry, Freeman Mill, Patterson, Aycock, Lawndale, Bryan boulevard,etc. They do make getting around the city quicker, but they do seem to make barriers on the other hand. I have to wonder, how many of these were planned before the part of town they are in was built (in which case, the barrier effect isn't so bad) and how many of them were built by more or less taking existing roads and neighborhoods and upgrading them through eminent domain.

[LM117]

The court battle over the I-77 toll lane project continues.

http://m.wbtv.com/wbtv/db_330726/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=GOVCBupv

An attorney for the North Carolina Department of Transportation conceded the purpose of the I-77 toll lanes was not to alleviate congestion on the crowded highway corridor.

Special Deputy Attorney General Scott Slusser made the statement in an argument before the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

Slusser was responding to a question from Judge Lucy Inman about what the public purpose of the toll lanes along I-77 is.

In response to Inman's question, Slusser said the purpose of the lanes is to "provide reliable travel time"  to drivers on the highway and side-stepped a question about whether the lanes were meant to reduce congestion on the busy highway. Later in his argument, Slusser said engineers have estimated the lanes could reduce traffic by roughly ten percent.

The line of questioning came during an hour-long argument at the Court of Appeals on Wednesday in a case challenging the I-77 toll lanes filed by the anti-tolls group Widen I-77.

The group originally filed its challenge to the toll lanes in January 2015. The case was dismissed by Mecklenburg County Superior Court Judge Osmand Smith in February 2016. That decision was appealed, which is what led to Wednesday's arguments.

Attorney Matt Arnold represented Widen I-77 at the hearing. Arnold boiled his argument down to two points: that the North Carolina General Assembly's decision to contract with a private company to build toll lanes does not serve a public purpose and that the private company building the lanes should not be able to set toll rates at its sole discretion.

Arnold argued that by failing to set a cap on toll rates, the state has delegated its ability to toll drivers, something, he argued, should not be allowed.

But Mitch Karlan, the attorney representing the company building the toll lanes, I-77 Mobility Partners, said there cannot be a cap on toll rates in order for the lanes to keep traffic moving at a guaranteed speed as required by its contract.

Karlan said that the company needs to be able to adjust its price in five-minute intervals–higher if a large number of cars are using the lanes and lower if traffic is lighter. He argued that a high-occupancy lane like the ones being built along I-77 cannot work if the maximum rate that can be charged is capped.

Last fall, WBTV visited Atlanta, Georgia, where lawmakers have capped the amount that drivers can be charged to use toll lanes there. That cap was recently increased to reflect the recent demand–and, therefore, the amount of traffic–in the toll lanes.

Karlan also told the three-judge panel that the company would be incentivized to keep rates as low as possible to encourage enough drivers to use the lanes in order to generate enough revenue to pay back its debt.

"We have to generate enough revenue to repay bonds,"  Karlan said, referring to the money I-77 Mobility Partners–and Cintra, its Spanish parent company–borrowed to build the toll lanes.

But a previous WBTV investigation found Cintra has a history of borrowing billions of dollars to build or toll roads, driving up the cost of tolls and then declaring bankruptcy when usage of its roads drop and the company can no longer pay its bills.

The company's toll roads in Chicago, Indiana and Texas have each gone bankrupt. In Chicago and Indiana, the company still made a profit on the roads even after declaring bankruptcy by selling the toll rights.

Under its deal with North Carolina, if Cintra were to default on the I-77 toll lanes, North Carolina would have to cover its losses up to $175 million, NCDOT says on the project's website.

Attorneys for both NCDOT and I-77 Mobility Partners pointed out that the public can use the toll lanes for free in some cases: those carpooling with three or more passengers, public transit vehicles, and emergency vehicles.

But, ultimately, attorney Matt Arnold and those behind the Widen I-77 group say that's not enough to justify the project moving forward.

"That still doesn't help the (Honda) Accord,"  Arnold told the judges in response to the assertion that the public is served by limited free use of the lanes. "It helps the guy in the Lexus but not the guy in the Accord. Or the guy in the work truck. Or the tractor-trailer."

After the arguments, Huntersville Commissioner Mark Gibbons said he hoped the judges were persuaded enough to stop the project.

"It just does not serve the whole public and that's wrong for something that will hold us hostage for the next 50 years,"  Gibbons said.

Representatives of NCDOT declined to comment following the court hearing Wednesday morning.

A spokesman for I-77 Mobility Partners declined to answer questions on camera but provided the following statement:

"We are very proud to be constructing an innovative transportation project that will help deliver traffic mobility options to motorists in the Charlotte and Lake Norman region. Progress on the construction of the I-77 Express Lanes is well under way and we are continuing to make significant progress towards project completion. We fully respect the judicial process and cannot comment further on pending litigation."

[hbelkins]

"Providing reliable travel time" and "reducing congestion" seem to me to be the same concept, just expressed in different words.

[mvak36]

"Providing reliable travel time" and "reducing congestion" seem to me to be the same concept, just expressed in different words.

I agree. Although I wish the state would run these toll lanes instead of some foreign company whose primary goal is profit margin. If NCDOT needs to know how to run these things, they can go talk to people in Georgia like that news station did.

Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what the court decides. I hope they will cancel the contract or, at a minimum, put price caps on the tolls. Cintra (f those guys, btw) probably won't like that, though.

[jakeroot]

"[the toll lanes do not] serve the whole public and that's wrong for something that will hold us hostage for the next 50 years,"  Gibbons said.

If Charlotte's growth plan is to never serve anything more than drivers, than yes, they may not serve the "whole" public (which is BS anyway because not everyone has a drivers licence and a car which they may or may not be allowed to drive (i.e. those with a suspended licence)). But if they plan to incorporate, I don't know, a bus, into their growth plan, the toll lanes will serve a purpose (provide reliable, on-time service for bus riders).

I'm not sure how the HOV lanes are currently performing along the I-77, but if they're not doing well, NCDOT has no choice but to install toll lanes, because federal funding comes into question when HOV lanes average lower than 45 mph.

[The Ghostbuster]

If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.

[LM117]

If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.

It's not just the officials. Lake Norman area residents are furious about the deal as well. It's one of the reasons NC has a new governor.

[jakeroot]

If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.

It's not just the officials. Lake Norman area residents are furious about the deal as well. It's one of the reasons NC has a new governor.

Who wants to pay a toll? Of course they aren't happy about the lanes.

What the DOT should do is upgrade interchanges and add auxiliary lanes (in places) to please the locals. That's what WSDOT did with the 405 toll lanes. Since the 405 toll lanes opened, congestion has increased where a bottleneck was built (which will be rectified at least slightly in the coming year), but decreased in other areas.

[LM117]

The latest on NC-540's construction timetable.

http://www.wral.com/dot-looks-to-hit-accelerator-on-nc-540-construction/16528818/

When will N.C. Highway 540 be finished?

It's a million-dollar question for many commuters in the Triangle, especially those who live south of Raleigh.

North Carolina Department of Transportation officials say they have a plan to complete the loop around Raleigh faster.

Many business owners and residents say it can't happen soon enough.

DOT communications officer Carly Olexik says the highway was designed to be completed in three segments, but there's now a way to "accelerate" all of that.

"Instead of having three separate segments, we are combining two big legs of the project. By completing those earlier, the entire project could be completed four years earlier," Olexik said.

The new plan combines the segment between the N.C. Highway 55 Bypass and U.S. Highway 401 with the section between U.S. 401 and I-40.

Construction could begin in 2020 or 2021, four years earlier than the original plan.

Joe Milazzo, the executive director of the Regional Transportation Alliance, which advocates for major transportation projects in the area, says completing N.C. 540 is the group's biggest priority. He says he likes the new timeline.

"Yesterday would be great, but as soon as they can get the project moving would be wonderful," he said.

Milazzo says a finished N.C. 540 will provide an important connection to I-40 and the future Interstate 42, which will generally follow the U.S. Highway 70 corridor and connect Garner, Clayton, Smithfield, Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern and Havelock with the Port of Morehead City.

"It's important for commerce, for travel alternatives. It's important for transit and also to relieve the local streets," he said.

DOT says it's going to look for ways to speed up the project even more.

The DOT's new plan also means a big change for the last segment of N.C. 540, which would connect the loop from I-40 to U.S. Highway 64/264 (Interstate 495) in Knightdale.

That segment originally was not on a schedule for completion, but the new plan now has construction beginning in 2027.

[The Ghostbuster]

I once heard they made NC 540 a toll road so it would be constructed sooner than if it was a free road. Was this interpretation accurate?

[LM117]

I once heard they made NC 540 a toll road so it would be constructed sooner than if it was a free road. Was this interpretation accurate?

Yes.

[NJRoadfan]

You replied to a bot.

[HazMatt]

Looks like they've removed a lot of the clutter from the 540 signage, at least in Apex.

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7474444,-78.8877692,3a,75y,287.73h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1MppsNwGu_DT74pCdogXkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1

After http://i.imgur.com/7idd4x3.jpg - Terrible quality (sorry).  Only shows Toll 540 North/South without any 'TO' signage or control cities.

[LM117]

The completion date for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (NC-11) has been pushed back to June 2020. The bypass is being built to interstate standards and would become part of a future interstate running from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel, should the Eastern NC Gateway Act be re-introduced in Congress and passes in some shape, form, or fashion.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/DOT-Greenville-Southwest-Bypass-is-on-track-414430673.html

You might want to plan some extra time for your commute if you're driving near Ayden.

The NC DOT closed two of the four lanes of NC-11, south of Ayden, Monday morning, for the installation of new sewer lines.

The work is expected to take a couple of weeks and should be completed by 5 p.m. March 17th.

Previous Story

Department of Transportation officials say the warm weather has allowed crews to put in a few more days of work on the Greenville Southwest Bypass this winter season.

However, officials say more work has been added to the project, pushing the expected completion date back to June 2020.

Drivers may have noticed the work being done on NC 11, just south of Ayden, where traffic is down to one lane in each direction.

Tuesday, crews were building crossovers, which they expect to finish by Thursday night, for an upcoming traffic shift that will allow workers to install a sewer line across NC 11.

"We've definitely been able to work a little more throughout the winter and been more productive," says Sarah Lentine, a DOT Greenville senior assistant engineer. "We're definitely satisfied with the work that's been done so far, we definitely feel like we're on track to complete."

Starting the second week of March, Sarah Lentine says traffic will shift to a two lane, two way pattern in the northbound lanes, so they can start building the sewer line across the south bound lanes.

She says traffic could stay in that pattern for 2-3 weeks.

[PColumbus73]

I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

[slorydn1]

I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.

[jwolfer]

I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.

Probably the end of i74 when sign placed. Like Benson on i40 because i40 ended there at i95 for a while

LGMS428

[slorydn1]

I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.

Probably the end of i74 when sign placed. Like Benson on i40 because i40 ended there at i95 for a while

LGMS428

There may be something to that, JW...

When the US-74 exit was still Exit 14 the controls were: Maxton and Laurinburg

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5962562,-79.1079599,3a,75y,59.59h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCWjyxszfj8LRWQHZ4YodOg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en
                                                                                   

[froggie]

Possibly related to potential confusion from having two route types with the same number at the same interchange, and the higher class of route does not go to Charlotte.

[sparker]

I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Possibly related to potential confusion from having two route types with the same number at the same interchange, and the higher class of route does not go to Charlotte.

Question:  Is the lack of mention for Charlotte only on the direct interchange BGS's; are there no additional signs mentioning Charlotte as a secondary destination -- e.g. "Charlotte/Wilmington use I-74" or similar?  Perhaps I'm just accustomed to CA-style signage that follows this practice; but it certainly would seem applicable here, as the I-74/US 74 corridor is the most direct route from I-95 to Charlotte.  Now if I-77 actually extended to I-95 somewhere in SC, NB Charlotte mention might not be so important, but SB is quite the opposite -- at least south of the I-85 split in VA.

[lordsutch]

Question:  Is the lack of mention for Charlotte only on the direct interchange BGS's; are there no additional signs mentioning Charlotte as a secondary destination -- e.g. "Charlotte/Wilmington use I-74" or similar?  Perhaps I'm just accustomed to CA-style signage that follows this practice; but it certainly would seem applicable here, as the I-74/US 74 corridor is the most direct route from I-95 to Charlotte.  Now if I-77 actually extended to I-95 somewhere in SC, NB Charlotte mention might not be so important, but SB is quite the opposite -- at least south of the I-85 split in VA.

Taking US 74 would be well out of the way for southbound I-95 traffic coming from anywhere south of Fayetteville, though. Taking US 64, US 264, US 70, or US 401 would all be shorter, quicker options. There's really nowhere of significance on I-95 except Lumberton where taking I-95 directly to US 74 on a trip to Charlotte would make sense.

[NJRoadfan]

Speaking of US-64 and control cities, NC seemed to view Raleigh as a destination as an afterthought. Completely inexcusable given that US-64 directly serves it and its the state capital.

https://goo.gl/maps/5wQJWQwxsRU2
https://goo.gl/maps/93GpW7G2ki42
https://goo.gl/maps/SV2XvWX8AwN2

Once you get off the exit, its finally signed as it should be:
https://goo.gl/maps/SDWy6GrAMdQ2

Northbound signing is worse, but irreverent given that traffic should have taken I-40 or US-264 already.