North Carolina

[LM117]

http://wnct.com/2016/08/24/key-eastern-n-c-projects-to-be-included-in-next-state-transportation-plan/

RALEIGH, N.C. — The N.C. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that several key transportation projects aimed at improving regional mobility and better connecting eastern North Carolina's communities will be included in the state's next draft 10-year transportation plan, which will be released in January 2017. The plan includes the years 2018 through 2027.

"A strong transportation network is the backbone of the state's economy,"  Governor Pat McCrory said. "We took the politics out of transportation planning to ensure roads and other important infrastructure are prioritized based on need. These projects demonstrate the process is working as intended to make smart decisions that keep North Carolina moving."

Projects for eastern North Carolina include:

Constructing the U.S. 70 Kinston Bypass from N.C. 148 to east of N.C. 58, part of the Future Interstate 42 corridor and an important connection to the Crystal Coast and Port of Morehead City

Widening U.S. 13/N.C. 11 from N.C. 11/561 near Ahoskie to U.S. 158/N.C. 45, which will improve safety and connect to recently widened sections near Winton in Hertford County

Widening N.C. 87 in Columbus County, which will improve access to the U.S. 74/76 corridor and support the agriculture industry

Upgrading U.S. 117 from north of Country Club Road to south of Genoa Road in Wayne County, improving the I-795 corridor

Improving the I-95/U.S. 701/N.C. 96 interchange and the I-95/U.S. 70 Business East interchange in Johnston County, facilitating a better connection between major regional routes

[bob7374]

NCDOT has also issued press releases regarding 2017-2028 Draft STIP projects for other areas on NC. Available toward the bottom of the page:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0

It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP. There are no projects in the current of draft STIP for upgrading US 52 north of the Beltway to Interstate standards.

[LM117]

It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP.

It's probably just a gaffe on their part.

[Strider]

NCDOT has also issued press releases regarding 2017-2028 Draft STIP projects for other areas on NC. Available toward the bottom of the page:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0

It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP. There are no projects in the current of draft STIP for upgrading US 52 north of the Beltway to Interstate standards.

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

[sparker]

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier. 

[Strider]

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier.

They should have done that when they first opened the I-74 section from I-77 to US 52 near Mt. Airy. Why have they not done that (other than Future I-74 Corridor sign that I have not seen on that section of US 52 between I-74 and the future beltway exit lately) is beyond me.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[bob7374]

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier.

They should have done that when they first opened the I-74 section from I-77 to US 52 near Mt. Airy. Why have they not done that (other than Future I-74 Corridor sign that I have not seen on that section of US 52 between I-74 and the future beltway exit lately) is beyond me.

NCDOT wanted to sign I-74 along US 52 from Mt. Airy to the future Beltway interchange when the corridor was approved in 1997 and to sign 'Temporary' I-74 along US 52 south to I-40. The FHWA disallowed the interstate designation since US 52 wasn't up to interstate standards and AASHTO disallowed the Temp. designation, though they gave them permission to sign that part of US 52 as 'To I-74'. Since the rest of the highway wasn't an interstate it made little sense for NCDOT at that time to put up any 'To I-74' trailblazers. They weren't allowed to put up Future I-74 signs since there was, and still is not, any funded project to upgrade US 52.

IMHO NCDOT should go ahead now and sign US 52 as To I-74 from I-40 to Mt. Airy plus change the exit numbers north of the future Beltway interchange to those based on I-74 mileposts. This puts an I-74 presence on US 52 and will prepare drivers for the day when it is officially designated an interstate. I believe NCDOT will try to get US 52 signed as I-74 for when the Eastern section is completed, having a project funded by then to widen the shoulders and asking the FHWA for a waiver for any remaining substandard elements.

Fixed quote. - rmf67

[LM117]

I found the full list of regional projects that are included in the draft 2018-2027 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/regional_impact_projects_P4.pdf

[LM117]

I just found an interesting presentation of the Greenville City Council's meeting that took place on June 16. It goes into detail about their push to turn US-264 into an interstate from Greenville to US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon. It appears that Congressmen Butterfield and Jones are laying the groundwork in preparation for introducing a bill in Congress designating US-264 as a future interstate. It has support from NCDOT.

Also mentioned is an interstate standard upgrade for US-13 between US-264 and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel and the NC-11 Greenville Southwest Bypass, which is currently under construction.

No interstate number(s) was mentioned. If it's introduced in Congress and it passes, it will likely become law as simply "Future Interstate" with numbering to come later, just like the I-42 and I-87 corridors.

Info on US-264 begins on page 60.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument%3Fid%3D11528&ved=0ahUKEwiO7pqGvuDOAhUUH2MKHdiqA2AQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNE6SDkzLjrZtvC-bt9WTtX2zEZmuQ

Looks like eastern NC's Quad East interstate system propsal might stand a chance of coming to fruition after all, with a connection to Hampton Roads to boot. Never say never in NC...

[LM117]

http://wnct.com/2016/08/31/stuck-in-labor-day-weekend-traffic-dont-blame-dot-projects/

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – The state Transportation Department is suspending most construction on major routes for the Labor Day holiday.

DOT officials say many projects along interstate, North Carolina and U.S. routes will be on hold from 6 a.m. Wednesday until midnight Monday.

Work will continue on various projects in Hertford, Tyrrell, Sampson, Pender, Vance, Warren and Jackson counties.

[wdcrft63]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

[wdcrft63]

On another front: Google now has a satellite view of two nearly-complete interchanges being built on US 74 just west of Shelby:
https://goo.gl/maps/BfCcRfRLyNF2
This is the beginning of the construction of the Shelby Bypass, which is billed as an interstate-standard freeway.

What's disappointing/surprising is that this project doesn't begin at the current end of the freeway linking I-26 to Shelby. There remain a couple of at-grade intersections including an intersection of US 74 and 74 Business:
https://goo.gl/maps/ds5opoJcYCx

There must be an intention to upgrade this short section as well, but I haven't seen it in the STIP. Maybe I've just missed it?

[LM117]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287".

[wdcrft63]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287".

Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

[LM117]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287".

Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.

[sparker]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287".

Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.

Since east of I-795 any routing along US 264, given the definition of the corridor as ending at Greenville, would have a "hanging" eastern terminus (barring a right-angle turn at Greenville to either I-87 or I-42, which doesn't seem to be part of the proposal), thus an odd-first-digit x87 would be entirely appropriate.

But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!

[CanesFan27]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287".

Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.

Since east of I-795 any routing along US 264, given the definition of the corridor as ending at Greenville, would have a "hanging" eastern terminus (barring a right-angle turn at Greenville to either I-87 or I-42, which doesn't seem to be part of the proposal), thus an odd-first-digit x87 would be entirely appropriate.

But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!

The key is this is being petitioned administratively.  All the FHWA has to decide is the following:

In the Administrative path, the FHWA makes an administrative determination of whether the proposed highway would be a logical addition to the Interstate system. In the Congressional path, no such determination is required.
In the Administrative path, the State(s) must make a commitment to complete the highway to Interstate design standards within 25 years from the designation as a future Interstate. In the Congressional path, no such commitment is required (with the exception of designation under P.L. 110-244)

Now the original Raleigh-Norfolk corridor was petitioned for Interstate 44 (not 50) administratively and was rejected and it appears the FHWA gave alternative suggestions for a number. (or even said there's no way this will be finished in 25 years)  NCDOT's response to Adam Froehlig's e-mail kinda hints to that.  After 44 was not approved, they did petition and received approval for 495.  Which again goes to my point if it meets or will meet standards in 25 years (see above) and is a logical addition or connects to the current system, that's all the sufficient reason to the FHWA to add to the system.

Now where I can understand those who have issues with the designations is that after not being approve for the I-44 corridor, NC went via the Congressional path.  There are no such limitations via that route and that I can understand where people would have issue with it.  However, if they are going via the administrative route - I don't see any issues with it and the requirements are clear (albeit open) on what is needed for a highway to be a Future Interstate Corridor.

And in the case of US 264 from Zebulon to Greenville - all that is really needed is widening shoulders.  The current Draft STIP had upgrading 264 from WIlson to Greenville  to Interstate standards on it.  So the 25 year threshold is nearly met (the wilson bypass is to standard). it also connects to the existing system.  The criteria for the administrative route is met.  It could still be denied but the basic publish criteria would be met.

[WashuOtaku]

The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I wonder where the Interstate will end, at exit 73 (approaching into Greenville, even maybe a Business Spur into downtown), or where US 264 / US 264 ALT connect on the eastern end of Greenville.  Personally I prefer the western end.  They can also revert US 264 Alt back as main US 264 once the route is signed Interstate, which is not uncommon. 

[LM117]

But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!

The article says the western terminus would be the US-64/264 split in Zebulon, not Knightdale.

NCDOT never proposed I-50. That number was a suggestion made by the US-70 Corridor Commission.

[sparker]

The article says the western terminus would be the US-64/264 split in Zebulon, not Knightdale.

NCDOT never proposed I-50. That number was a suggestion made by the US-70 Corridor Commission.

Cobbled together my previous post on my work computer just before leaving, based on the posted info; didn't get a chance to actually read the article until I got home.  If the proposed Interstate's western terminus is indeed Zebulon rather than multiplexing all the way to Knightdale, then that would certainly lessen the chances that a 2di would be sought (64 miles is a bit marginal compared to 80).  As far as the I-50 suggested designation is concerned, I meant, in context, that that number originated within a NC-based organization, not NCDOT specifically (they do get a definite cite for the subsequent I-36 proposal, however).  The gist of my comments are that within the NC transportation "apparatus" it's like a game of horseshoes -- "close enough" counts when it comes to designations! 

[The Nature Boy]

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/08/Governor-seeking-future-interstate-designation-for-U-S-264.html

The Governor's office is trying to market this as making Greenville "more accessible." I'm not entirely sure how widening the shoulders on an existing freeway will do that.

[LM117]

Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve I-x87 for US-264, NC would have the honor of having two 3-digit concurrencies (I-785/I-840, I-795/I-x87).

[sparker]

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/08/Governor-seeking-future-interstate-designation-for-U-S-264.html

The Governor's office is trying to market this as making Greenville "more accessible." I'm not entirely sure how widening the shoulders on an existing freeway will do that.

In this context, the governor's office's statement is code for "we want to attract foreign investment -- mostly in regards to warehousing & distribution -- to the area, and we think that a direct Interstate to the main city in the area will help with that".  Greenville already lies at a junction of East Carolina rail branches, so access to the CSX and NS main lines is assured (including close access to the planned Rocky Mount CSX hub); but apparently it is also felt that "nailing down" expedited truck access via an Interstate route would be an additional attractant (much the same logic, directed toward the port area, was manifested in the designation of I-42). 

[The Ghostbuster]

I still like the number I chose previously for the US 264 corridor: Interstate 187!

[wdcrft63]

I agree. But none of us have been very good at predicting these numbers!