Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[PColumbus73]

That design is quite fascinating

[mvak36]

You can make a U turn on it   

[Henry]

Since the Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate runs east-west, an even number makes a lot more sense.

As for the I-40/NC 540/US 70 interchange, I don't mind the C/D road for I-40 east, although I would prefer a flyover from US 70 west to NC 540 west, as well as from I-40 east to NC 540 east.

[MazdaStrider]

On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.

I too find this interchange to be fascinating.

The Environmental Impact Statement does show a proposed design. It looks like a cross between a turbine and a giant high speed three and a half level stacked incomplete roundabout, with the existing cloverleaf kept plus three new ones. The turbiney-roundabouty thingy has two weaves shown, plus two weaves between cloverleafs.

The weave on I-40E is long so it would probably be OK but it's a little disappointing to me that US70W -> NC540W doesn't get a flyover.

Something tells me this design is still a work in progress.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf - see the one marked "Orange to Green"

Interesting design. Looks fascinating, but I have the feeling this won't be the final design as there may be a traffic mess

[CanesFan27]

I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

Did get down there yesterday.  The highway is currently signed NC 44 if you are headed eastbound. However, westbound west of the 795 interchange it is signed as US 70 Bypass West. Signs at the NC 581 interchange already read US 70 Bypass.  No changes to signs at the US 117 and Wayne MEmorial Drive interchanges.  (Didn't get on 795 to see how it looked like there).  I and a few others have mentioned that it is to Interstate standards.  It may need an exception for one lengthy bridge over a swamp between 581 and the 795 interchange.  Here are some photos.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
70 East approaching the bypass - these are temporary signs until the entire bypass opens.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
Just east of the NC 581 Interchange - temporary NC 44 shield.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
Westbound at NC 581.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
Eastbound approaching I-795.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
Eastbound at 795.  This is actually an impressive interchange - an cell camera doesn't give it justice.  Will need to come back and take more shots.

Untitled by Adam Prince, on Flickr
Westbound between 795 and 581.  This is the bridge with the narrow interior shoulder that may be of concern.  It is rather lengthy so a possible exception?  I didn't measure the length.


I've added the photos to my album that covered the opening of the original segment of the bypass here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307

[CanesFan27]

According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!

[Mapmikey]

According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!

Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike

[PColumbus73]

If they are going to give a 2di number to a highway in North Carolina, why would it not go to US 64?

[froggie]

Perhaps because the US 70 corridor is both further along in planning and actually has the traffic volume to support such a designation?

[wdcrft63]

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.

[wdcrft63]

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.

And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.

[Katavia]

Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike

Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

[froggie]

Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.

[jwolfer]

Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.

No reason to duplicate numbers since 42, 46 are available and fit in the grid. Unless there is some grand scheme to connect i44 from Raleigh to St Louis

[Thing 342]

Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike

Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

This new route would be mostly south of the existing I-44, though. I-42 seems like the logical option, as NC hasn't shown any fear of heaving similarly-numbered routes nearby.

[CanesFan27]

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.

And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.

I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.

[bob7374]

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.

And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.

I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.

Think it would be somewhat ironic if AASHTO chooses 44 for the US 70 Corridor route since the group pushing the US 64/US 17 Raleigh-Norfolk corridor route had suggested that number for its proposal. IMO either 42 or 44 would work for US 70. I would have an I-5x for US 64 since that number should be higher than that for the US 70 route and all the even 5x numbers are available.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

Interstate 11 should be a designation

I-11: From Vegas to Havelock

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1

[wdcrft63]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.

[national highway 1]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1

Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.

[ReeseFerlautoI74/85]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1

Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.

Don't worry sir, I scrapped 11 and decided that I-48 should be the designation for US 70!!

SM-G360T1

[roadman65]

Actually they could sign it into law.  All they need to do is pick another I-11 for this route and a Bud Schuster type of those who support the I-69ECW BS do it and AASHTO ruling cannot do diddly.

[The Nature Boy]

Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.

I'm sorry that the folks in Greenville aren't on a 2di interstate but their city is kind of positioned in an awkward place to be on an interstate.