North Carolina

[ARMOURERERIC]

I agree with the I-38 concept, especially if the Kings Mountain to Charlotte Airport tollway gets restarted.  But, locally, I hear I-426 floated frequently.

[sparker]

I agree with the I-38 concept, especially if the Kings Mountain to Charlotte Airport tollway gets restarted.  But, locally, I hear I-426 floated frequently.

NC local officials and boosters tend to initially conceive of their city as the destination of any new Interstate corridor; this train of thought was the impetus behind the original I-495 designation of US 64 between I-95 and Raleigh; the notion was to simply give I-95 traffic a direct Interstate route into town.  It's probable that the same sentiment lies with those mentioning a "I-426"; the immediate goal is to convey I-26 travelers into the western reaches of greater Charlotte.   Nevertheless, it's likely that NCDOT will take a more interregional view and see the US 74 corridor west of Rockingham as one of the "missing links" in the state's ever-expanding Interstate network, egged on by the usual coterie of in-state advocates.  Now that NCDOT and their cohorts know how to take advantage of the process of conflating new federal high-priority corridors with trunk Interstate designations (as with I-42), it's probable that they'll continue to do so whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[LM117]

NC local officials and boosters tend to initially conceive of their city as the destination of any new Interstate corridor; this train of thought was the impetus behind the original I-495 designation of US 64 between I-95 and Raleigh; the notion was to simply give I-95 traffic a direct Interstate route into town.

I-495 was "Plan B" after NCDOT's attempt at securing an I-44 designation between Raleigh and Norfolk from FHWA failed, likely due in no small part that there was no way that NCDOT could upgrade the entire corridor within FHWA's required 25-year deadline, especially where US-17 is concerned. So, NCDOT settled for I-495 and FHWA agreed to it. I-44 applications were never sent to AASHTO, however. You are right though, that local officials pushed for the connection to I-95, while also never giving up on the idea of linking Raleigh to Norfolk.

I initially thought NCDOT jumped the gun with I-495, since I-87's routing became law not long after I-495 was born, but looking back, I don't think NCDOT anticipated a Raleigh-Norfolk corridor moving through Congress as quick as it did.

[Third Strike]

Is it possible for the NCDOT to sign the Monroe Bypass/Expressway as an Interstate? Do we know if the road is being funded by federal dollars? Because if it is, doesn't this mean the bypass can't become an Interstate or even a spur, in the same fashion as how NC 540 couldn't become part of I-540? If that's the case, then the Shelby bypass will likely become a spur of I-26, and US 74 between Rockingham and Wingate would become a spur of I-74.

[LM117]

Update on the Fortify project in Raleigh.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13912

RALEIGH — Drivers going through the Interstate 40 Fortify project work zone next week will notice some major changes taking place. Beginning Monday night, June 5, contractor crews will begin taking away median barrier walls and re-opening newly-built outside lanes on the westbound side of the highway that have been closed during construction. That will shift traffic into its final pattern, and provide more space for drivers.

The shifts will be done over several nights, with work starting from the Gorman Street exit and going back to the I-40/440 split in southeast Raleigh in stages. The work is weather dependent, as new traffic lines have to be put in place, and that can't be done in rainy or high humidity conditions.

As the westbound traffic lanes are opening, crews will continue to work on the eastbound side of the project, rebuilding those outside lanes. Once the westbound side of the project has been shifted into its final configuration, and as the schedule allows, crews will begin shifting portions of the eastbound lanes into their final pattern as well. This is expected to begin in early July.

With the exception of between Gorman Street and the U.S. 1 interchange in Cary, where there are three lanes open in each direction, the same number as before the project started, all traffic is expected to be in its final pattern by early to mid-August.

Once traffic is in that final pattern, the next major step will begin. This involves a resurfacing of the entire 8.5 miles of the project along I-40 in both directions, with permanent lane stripes and lane reflective markers as well. This will provide a smooth riding surface as well as on the transitions on and off of bridges in the work zone. That work will last into the late fall, and is also weather conditional.

As with the lane re-openings, the resurfacing will take place overnight to lower the impact to travelers. Lane closures will be in place to provide safer working conditions for the construction crews.

The opening of lanes in the final traffic pattern doesn't mean there will be a change in the project speed limit of 60 miles per hour. Drivers are urged to continue to slow down and use extra caution while traveling through the work zone for their own safety as well as other drivers and passengers, and the construction crews.That is especially the case over the next few weeks as the western lanes go through their shifts.

Fortify project details, as well as traffic updates and live traffic cameras can be found on FortifyNC.com.

Real-time travel information for Fortify and other highways across the state is available at any time at DriveNC.gov and by following NCDOT on Twitter.

[TimQuiQui]

Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

[TimQuiQui]

Is it possible for the NCDOT to sign the Monroe Bypass/Expressway as an Interstate? Do we know if the road is being funded by federal dollars? Because if it is, doesn't this mean the bypass can't become an Interstate or even a spur, in the same fashion as how NC 540 couldn't become part of I-540? If that's the case, then the Shelby bypass will likely become a spur of I-26, and US 74 between Rockingham and Wingate would become a spur of I-74.

To my knowledge, the Expressway is completely based on a state-level public-private partnership, no federal money is involved. I don't think the department will seek to designate it anything other than US 74 for the foreseeable future for two reasons: The first being the fact that the expressway is still scheduled to be extended to east of Wadesboro in a second phase, so I doubt they would try to designate it without the ultimate plans being complete. Second, even by extending the Expressway to east of Wadesboro, the road would need some freeway upgrades for the miles between Wadesboro and Rockingham, so there would be a gap to future I-74.

[LM117]

Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

Unless NCDOT has been in contact with FHWA, they will still have to send applications to AASHTO and FHWA before they can sign it as I-885. They have not yet done so.

[wdcrft63]

Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

Unless NCDOT has been in contact with FHWA, they will still have to send applications to AASHTO and FHWA before they can sign it as I-885. They have not yet done so.

I don't think NCDOT has requested the I-885 designation yet. They're assuming it's a no-brainer, and it probably is. It's hard to see what objection there could be to the designation.

[WashuOtaku]

Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

They have been assuming it since the start of the project in 2014.  Of course they still have to request it to AASHTO, but their is no reason to deny it.

[ARMOURERERIC]

We have seen signage plan sheets with the I-885 shield on them

[bob7374]

We have seen signage plan sheets with the I-885 shield on them

Plan images are available (towards the bottom) on my Future I-885 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html

[orulz]

I am sure I said this before but, I think they should:
1. Drop the NC147 designation for the entire Durham Freeway and Triangle Parkway
2. Route US70 over the downtown segment of the Durham Freeway and the EEC, cutting the I-85/US70 multiplex down to just 2 miles from exit 170 to 172 (it could be eliminated entirely with ramps from Business US70 to the Durham Freeway near exit 172 but that's probably not worth it)
3. Route I-885 as planned except without the NC147 multiplex
4. Renumber the toll portionof NC147 to NC885 (or continue the I-885 designation if rules change to allow it.)

[Mapmikey]

On the way home from Durham I took US 401 out of Raleigh to drive the Rolesville Bypass.

The bypass was built as a superstreet setup at most (all?) of the intersections where left turns were accomplished by using U-turns past the intersection.

Two things I'd never seen before with these:

1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

2.  At the north end of the Rolesville bypass, US 401 Business traffic NB comes to a stoplight with US 401 SB and you must turn right at the T-intersection.  Then if you want to go to US 401 NB you make a U-turn but this has a signal for 401 NB traffic.  It is also possible to turn left directly from 401 NB to US 401 Business SB (how many people need to do this?). I don't understand why this makes any sense at a T-intersection.  Why not have the NB traffic use the same stoplight as the one at the SB lanes and have a left merge with no stoplight on US 401 NB.  The divided highway goes on another 3/4 mile which is enough room to do this...

[froggie]

1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

A number of reasons.  It still eliminates the left turn conflicts at the main intersection, with the resultant safety benefits.  The signal is also simpler in that it's effectively a two-phase...with a traditional intersection you'd need at least a four-phase signal if protected left phases were desired.  The signal allows for a higher throughput than if it was stop-controlled.

IIRC, there are similar intersections along 15/501 between Chapel Hill and Durham.


Do not have an answer or a theory for your #2.

[CanesFan27]

On the way home from Durham I took US 401 out of Raleigh to drive the Rolesville Bypass.

The bypass was built as a superstreet setup at most (all?) of the intersections where left turns were accomplished by using U-turns past the intersection.

Two things I'd never seen before with these:

1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

2.  At the north end of the Rolesville bypass, US 401 Business traffic NB comes to a stoplight with US 401 SB and you must turn right at the T-intersection.  Then if you want to go to US 401 NB you make a U-turn but this has a signal for 401 NB traffic.  It is also possible to turn left directly from 401 NB to US 401 Business SB (how many people need to do this?). I don't understand why this makes any sense at a T-intersection.  Why not have the NB traffic use the same stoplight as the one at the SB lanes and have a left merge with no stoplight on US 401 NB.  The divided highway goes on another 3/4 mile which is enough room to do this...

This is an example of the Superstreet and they have grown throughout the state.  US 17 in Wilmington, NC 55 Bypass in holly Springs come to mind among others.  Some are signalized some aren't.  But they are now throughout the state.

[golden eagle]

Why the need to label 'end of 78' on the Sanford inset?

I have the 2017-18 map I picked up at the I-85 welcome center near the Virginia border. I guess I'll go ahead and request the 2018/19 version.

[NJRoadfan]

The NC-55 Bypass in Holly Springs finally converted the last intersection (Avent Ferry Rd.) to a super street setup. Traffic was getting pretty backed up there during rush hour, especially during the school year with the high school being west of there.

[LM117]

Bidding will begin in September for the US-301 improvement project in Wilson, with construction starting in early 2018.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/bids-start-in-september-for-tiger-grant-projects,86880

Wilsonians got an opportunity Wednesday to see the future of U.S. 301 from the ground up.

"So far everything we've heard (from residents) has been very positive,"  said Bill Bass, assistant public works director for Wilson. "People are excited to see some progress, the final plans and to get some information about when construction can begin."

There have been several prior meetings to get feedback on the $18 million project to improve the thoroughfare from Black Creek Road to Lipscomb Road. Bass said bids will be accepted started in September, and in early 2018 construction should begin on the project that includes raised medians, sidewalks and crosswalks along with improved stormwater systems in the area.

"I'm excited because of what it will do for Wilson, especially east Wilson,"  Councilman A.P. Coleman said at the public meeting.

The national shift toward interstates led to the U.S. 301 corridor to be neglected, but in 2015, the city was awarded $10 million in a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant to reinvest in the historic highway. In November, officials announced a $6.5 million allocation from the state that would enable the project to address a larger section of the infrastructure.

Wilson Chief Planning and Development Officer Rodger Lentz said he's had an uptick in inquiries – new construction and redevelopment – about development along U.S. 301 since the project was announced.

"I think it is this road project as well as the community college project at the old Lee Motor Co. that has helped to create additional confidence in development along this section of 301,"  he said. "These developments along with others in Wilson, like the rebuilding of the McDonald's, all help to create confidence that this is a good place for business."

Officials said the contractors would determine the construction timeline along with potential traffic delays.

"With any road construction project, there will be inconvenience, but I do think the end project will be worth it,"  Lentz said.

With sidewalks and bike paths incorporated into the project, officials said they anticipate residents will appreciate the increased accessibility to businesses and schools.

"Instead of 301 being a barrier like it is for moving around, it should be much safer,"  he said. "I think this project should really enhance the quality of life for people near this section of 301."

For more information on the project, visit www.WilsonNC.org/TIGER.

[LM117]

A contract has been awarded for the widening of a section of US-301 Bypass in Rocky Mount, between May Drive and Benvenue Road.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13978

RALEIGH–A wider Rocky Mount Bypass is one step closer to reality as the N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $28-million contract for the project to PLT-RBP JV Construction of Wilson.

The two-mile section of the U.S. 301 Bypass between just south of May Drive and Benvenue Road will widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes by adding an additional lane in each direction with a hybrid synchronized street design. It will modify most intersections to limit cross-over traffic and in turn improve safety and congestion.

Two bridges will also be replaced — one over Stony Creek, with the new bridge better able to handle potential floodwaters, and the other over U.S. 64 to improve height clearance and accommodate road widening.

The project can begin as early as June 26 and is scheduled to finish by November 2019. Additional vegetation work can continue through April 2020.

Due to the high volume of commuters that use this route, work will primarily take place at night. Contractors are required to keep the U.S. 301 Bypass open each day between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. They are also prohibited from closing any nearby road on weekdays from 6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.

[froggie]

^ Looks like some Superstreet concepts will be included in that one.

[LM117]

Property acquisition is underway in Goldsboro for the widening of US-117/US-117 Business (North William Street) between US-70 and US-70 Bypass.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/06/21/street_widening_project_threatens_properties/

More than 80 parcels of property along North William Street (U.S. 117 North) will be affected by right of-way acquisition for a $21 million highway improvement plan.

That property acquisition already is under way for the project that will transform the street into a four-lane, median-divided highway between U.S. 70 and the new U.S. 70 Bypass.

North William Street currently varies from two to four lanes and is either undivided or features two-way left-turn lanes for the median.

The state plans to widen the street to 12-foot-wide inside lanes and 14-foot-wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic.

It would include a 17.6-foot median along North William Street from the U.S. 70 westbound ramp to Tommy's Road to reduce traffic conflict points and improve north-south traffic flow.

Some sections of the median would be grass, while the narrower sections, where turns will be allowed, would be concrete.

Median openings will be installed at select locations along the street to accommodate U-turns and left-turning traffic from side streets.

The U.S. 117 Alternate/North William Street intersection would be realigned to reduce conflicting turning movements where there are no signals.

The project is included in the 2016-25 State Transportation Improvement Program.

The state initially set aside nearly $1 million for right of way. However, Matt Clarke, state Department of Transportation Division 4 project engineer, said he is "fairly confident" more will be needed.

"The official right-of-way plans were submitted on March 16 of this year," he said. "I would assume some property owners have been contacted by the right-of-way agents. There are 83 parcels on this project. Some of the parcels are owned by the same owners, but there are 83 total that looks like will be impacted.

"The total business and residential locations, I am not sure of."

Also, the final project cost could vary based on right away and other factors such as utility relocation expenses, he said.

Bids are scheduled to be let in August 2018, with construction expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete.

Once construction gets underway, motorists can expect detours and delays, Clarke said.

"One thing about this thought, it is going to be constructed so that traffic can be maintained on William Street," he said. "There may be some times when there may be some impacts, but there will be some lane shifts and a lane may need to be narrowed. But traffic will be maintained on the routes."

There may be a case where occasionally traffic might need to be detoured to do some kind of work, but most closures more than likely would be done late at night, he said.

The project was the subject of a June 2016, public meeting at the Goldsboro Event Center.

Clarke said that a lot of the residents and business owners who attended the meeting appeared positive toward the change even though they might be affected.

The public response was good, and based on public comments the plan design was adjusted where possible to lessen the impact, Clarke said.

The roadway alignment was maybe shifted in some locations were possible, he said.

"We did take the comments and where possible, tried to make adjustments when it was financially and also practically possible," Clarke said.

[LM117]

The Superstreet craze continues...this time on US-74 in Indian Trail.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13983

CHARLOTTE — Several intersections along U.S. 74 in Indian Trail will undergo some changes as part of a $9.5 million project that will get underway tonight, June 20, weather permitting.

The project includes converting four full-movement, signalized intersections to superstreets, a type of intersection where side-street traffic is redirected from going straight through or left at a divided highway intersection.

Instead, all side- street traffic must turn right, but can then safely access a U-turn to proceed in the desired direction. This design improves safety by reducing the chance for intersection crashes, and decreases travel time because of simplified traffic signal timing.

The intersections are located along U.S. 74 at Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road/Sardis Church Road, Faith Church Road, Unionville-Indian Trail Road, and Indian Trail/Indian Trail-Fairview Road.

The contractor, Sealand Contractors Corp., will be permitted to close lanes on U.S. 74 between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The contract will also restrict lane closures during holidays and special events in Charlotte that may generate heavier traffic.

The project is scheduled for completion in November 2018.

[iBallasticwolf2]

There sure must be a major traffic need if NCDOT is upgrading US 74 and building a tollway bypass of it at the same time.

[PColumbus73]

What I find interesting about NCDOT's superstreets is that it seems that NCDOT only uses mast arms and pole mounted signals rather than span wires seen elsewhere. Is there a reason NCDOT does this? Are they transitioning to mast arms only?