North Carolina

[froggie]

Given how late the new I-40 around W-S was finished (ca. early 1990s), the old 40 was woefully out of standard by then and FHWA likely objected to keeping it as an Interstate.

[plain]

Just my opinion.... it seems so silly to me to do away with the Business 40 designation. It's such a logical designation to begin with. Approaching it from either direction on I-40, it just screams "this is the way to the Central BUSINESS District of Winston-Salem" so it makes since to just leave it there.

Two reasons.  First, non-natives were confusing Business 40 with I-40, which apparently was causing some sort of problem.  Second, Winston-Salem growth has leapfrogged I-40 for years now so there's probably no much loss in dropping the business designation.

Well if that's the reason then all other Business Routes for interstates in the country might as well be scraped too lol.

[ARMOURERERIC]

As a non native who traveled both iterations in the mid 1990's monthly and now as a quasi local that travels through the area every other week, I think the goal here is to stop giving anyone ANY reason to think that they can use Bus 40 as a through traffic route.  I suspect, at least westbound, that half of Asheville bound travellers look at the map and go through town.  Frankly I fond the 40 bypass to the south noticeably longer and not all that much easier to drive.  After the 3rd westbound trip I just stayed on the old route.  On Sundays, it's not too bad.  They want to discourage any new drivers like me.

[WashuOtaku]

Given how late the new I-40 around W-S was finished (ca. early 1990s), the old 40 was woefully out of standard by then and FHWA likely objected to keeping it as an Interstate.

Keep in mind that the East-West Expressway (now part of the Salem Parkway) was the very first section to be incorporated as an Interstate in North Carolina (1958), it's original purpose was a rerouting of US 158 and the standards used predates the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.  In the 1980s, the state convinced FHWA the need of a new I-40 through Winston-Salem, not the other way around; this was for funding purposes, which is why that section became the last to be completed in 1992.

[mvak36]

They should just make 421 interstate-standard all the way to Wilkesboro (or at least I-77).

Given that it's NCDOT, I'm a bit as surprised as hbelkins that NCDOT hasn't considered upgrading Business 40 to modern interstate standards and attempting to have it designated as I-640 (only even 3-di left).

[The Ghostbuster]

Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

[Strider]

Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.

[wdcrft63]

Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.

As a politically sensitive state agency, NCDOT pays pretty close attention to what the local leadership says they want. We certainly saw that in the eastern part of the state, where NCDOT rolled over on demands for I-42, I-87, and I-whatever US 264 is going to be. But in Winston-Salem, the city isn't asking for an interstate designation, it's asking for the US 421 signage. So NCDOT is happy with that.

[LM117]

Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.

As a politically sensitive state agency, NCDOT pays pretty close attention to what the local leadership says they want. We certainly saw that in the eastern part of the state, where NCDOT rolled over on demands for I-42, I-87, and I-whatever US 264 is going to be. But in Winston-Salem, the city isn't asking for an interstate designation, it's asking for the US 421 signage. So NCDOT is happy with that.

Bingo.

[LM117]

NCDOT has submitted an application to AASHTO for Future I-587, following US-264 from US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon to the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) in Greenville. AASHTO denied the request.

Request and reasons for rejection are on page 47 & 48.

http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf

One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

So unless the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress in some shape, form or fashion, US-264 will never become an interstate.

I spoke too soon. I forgot that FHWA can still overrule AASHTO and approve Future I-587, which was the case with I-795.

[HazMatt]

One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

This seems like a weird set of responses for a 3-digit interstate spur, especially the one where it says it's 'not a spur'.

[Jmiles32]

NCDOT has submitted an application to AASHTO for Future I-587, following US-264 from US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon to the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) in Greenville. AASHTO's SCOH denied the request.

Request and reasons for rejection are on page 47 & 48.

http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf

One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

So unless the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress in some shape, form or fashion, US-264 will never become an interstate.

The politicians in Greenville aren't gonna be too happy...

[LM117]

One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

This seems like a weird set of responses for a 3-digit interstate spur, especially the one where it says it's 'not a spur'.

I know. That's what I don't understand. Anybody can look at a map and clearly see that it's a spur. It's no different than I-795, other than being longer. One of the reasons also says that the route already uses "interstate highways". Wow, it uses maybe 3-4 miles of I-795 in Wilson.

[lordsutch]

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.

[LM117]

The politicians in Greenville aren't gonna be too happy...

No, they aren't and I honestly couldn't blame them. AASHTO's reasons for denying Future I-587 are bullshit, IMO.

[wdcrft63]

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.

I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.

[Strider]

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.

I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.

Plus, we don't need another interstate. Finish building others first (I-42, I-73/74, I-87) before requesting for more. Plus, Future I-587 does not make any sense because if it is going to connect I-87 to I-95 and then I-795, which should be an even I-xxx number... What NC should do is request a spur route from I-795 to Greenville, in which would be another I-x95.

I am glad it gets denied.

[CanesFan27]

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.

I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.

To Chris' point: I don't believe the Committee members really look at applications in detail.   I believe on of the four claims it is not a spur. The other three omitted.

In comparison, i Would love to see the comments on I-14 in Texas (legislative lyrics assigned) and do not forget that the numbering folks were over ruled on 69 ECW.

And further if connecting to a state is that high of a criteria, then I-42 should not be such and be a 3di.  It is not Tar Heel Fatigue as you mention more so of a selective application of nonspecific criteria.

As for legislative route- yes that's one route of remedy. But if the FHWA - who have actual criteria - says yes it's ok. then NC can resubmit and have that in documentation.

[CanesFan27]

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.

I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.

Plus, we don't need another interstate. Finish building others first (I-42, I-73/74, I-87) before requesting for more. Plus, Future I-587 does not make any sense because if it is going to connect I-87 to I-95 and then I-795, which should be an even I-xxx number... What NC should do is request a spur route from I-795 to Greenville, in which would be another I-x95.

I am glad it gets denied.

So are you saying that programmed improvements to US 264 done prior to the proposed designation be moved elsewhere?

[PColumbus73]

Honestly, having I-587 run from the US 64/US 264 split to Greenville is odd. If it were approved, it would be at least half as long as it's parent, which is unusual in itself. If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

[bob7374]

 

Honestly, having I-587 run from the US 64/US 264 split to Greenville is odd. If it were approved, it would be at least half as long as it's parent, which is unusual in itself. If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

Or you could combine the two ideas and make a loop.

[LM117]

If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

It's in the works.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9

Greenville is more focused on US-264 since it would be the easiest and cheapest to upgrade. It already meets interstate standards between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line.

[Strider]

If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

It's in the works.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9

Greenville is more focused on US-264 since it would be the easiest and cheapest to upgrade. It already meets interstate standards between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line.

If that is true, why didn't they request a designation from I-795 to Greenville as an I-x95?

[LM117]

If that is true, why didn't they request a designation from I-795 to Greenville as an I-x95?

My guess is that they wanted to kill two birds with one stone by having not only an interstate connection to I-95, but also to Raleigh and cross-country via I-87's connection to I-40. FHWA would likely be more supportive of US-264's upgrade if it went all the way to Zebulon instead of just ending in Wilson.

[mvak36]

I'm not buying their reasoning behind denying the request. I guess they have never heard of a spur route or a concurrency/

Well, maybe it will pass through Congress.