North Carolina

[Strider]

some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.

[wdcrft63]

some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.

I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

[amroad17]

It is apparent that the Raleigh-Durham area did not project for the growth that has happened in the past 30 years.  In 1990, Raleigh's population was around 210-215,000.  By 2000, the population was around 280,000.  As of 2015, the population was close to 450,000.  The population of the city itself and the area around it has more than doubled the past 26 years.  No wonder there is quite a bit of gridlock in the area as there have been, with the exception of the NC 540 toll road, very few roads built to combat this.  Of course, with all the developments and subdivisions built up in the area, there is no optimal place to build an alleviating freeway.

It seems as if the Raleigh-Durham area is going to have to be this way for quite a while--unless NCDOT can find a viable solution to fix this.

[Jmiles32]

It is apparent that the Raleigh-Durham area did not project for the growth that has happened in the past 30 years.  In 1990, Raleigh's population was around 210-215,000.  By 2000, the population was around 280,000.  As of 2015, the population was close to 450,000.  The population of the city itself and the area around it has more than doubled the past 26 years.  No wonder there is quite a bit of gridlock in the area as there have been, with the exception of the NC 540 toll road, very few roads built to combat this.  Of course, with all the developments and subdivisions built up in the area, there is no optimal place to build an alleviating freeway.

It seems as if the Raleigh-Durham area is going to have to be this way for quite a while--unless NCDOT can find a viable solution to fix this.

http://wncn.com/2016/04/29/ncdot-study-looks-at-possibility-of-express-lanes-on-i-40/
Hmmmmm now where have I seen this before...
But in all seriousness it's not a bad prediction to say that some sort of express lane system is on the horizen in the Research Triangle

[CanesFan27]

40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.

Or maybe you just like to assume without asking for clarify. I drove through Triangle so many times, I know what it is like out there. Next time make sure you ask nicely instead of assuming I don't understand anything you guys are talking about. I am simply telling my OPINION. Take it or leave it. No need to bash, especially when a person like me who LIVES in the state and knows the roads so well.

So explain how 540 being complete will take traffic off of 40 from 147 to 540 which 70 parallels.

70 as a freeway to 540 more accuractely to Eastgate/Lumley Roads - which is a back entrance to RDU - is as needed as 1 to at least Wake Forest. 70 also has intersections with Miami Blvd and TW Alexander which feed directly into various parts of the park. The traffic counts and congestion at Brier Creek was anticipated enough that there is actually right of way reserved for an Interchange, I can go on.

As for the interpretation that one freeway is enough.  You make an argument that the East End Connector is all that is necessary.

It is not my argument. It is my opinion, so respect it and move on.

Unfortunately  you can't have it both ways. Are you saying no one should challenge your opinions? Or ask for further reasoning? 

[orulz]

The real answer is that transit will have to become a big part of the picture in the coming decades, if growth is to continue. Few corridors that are not already freeways or near-freeways can be upgraded without extreme expense and impact. Current growth rates have the triangle hitting the current population of the DFW metroplex in about 35 or 40 years, but there is no way to build out a comparable freeway network by then. So the only answers are that the growth will slow at some point, strangled by congestion, or that we will have to get real about transit, which can carry more people in smaller rights-of-way. The referendum on election day is evidence that transit is the way the region is choosing for itself, but that does not mean we should give up on freeways either.

LGL44VL

[LM117]

some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.

I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck.

[Strider]

some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.

I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck.

I had the same issue when I went to Duke a couple of weeks ago. That curve at the end of the ramp.. wow! I am never taking that ramp again.

I hope NCDOT have plans to fix these interchanges in the future.

[orulz]

What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL

[Strider]

What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL

Are the ramps similar at the NC 540/US 64 interchange? I have not been in that area.

[Mapmikey]

What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL

The 147 interchange could use better warning signage.  The SB-SB ramp has a RAMP 15 mph sign about halfway down the ramp and nothing else.  The NB-NB ramp the 15 mph sign is much closer to the sharp curve.

The ramp from 540 SB to 64 WB is posted better (sharp 25 mph curve signs on both sides of the ramp at an appropriate distance) for its similar ramp as the 147 ones.  The ramp from 540 NB to 64 EB does not have GMSV but looking at the satellite it looks like it wasn't necessary to have that sharp a bend.  For the SB to WB they could've avoided these by integrating this interchange with the immediately adjacent US 64 interchange with Kelly Rd

[orulz]

Yes Kelly Rd is the reason the ramps are so tight to the west. I believe that the Kelly Rd grade separation and interchange was added in at a very late stage in the project. But there is no excuse for the crummy geometry to the east of the interchange.

LGL44VL

[wdcrft63]

some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.

I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck.

I've driven through this interchange many times. What's needed is flyover ramps, one from NC147WB to 15-501SB and one from 15-501NB to NC147WB. This would eliminate the two super-tight loop ramps on the north side of 147; those ramps can't be fixed because the interchange is bang up against the railroad. The two loop ramps on the south side of 147 aren't quite as tight and don't carry as much traffic as the two on the north side. Space is still a big problem, but there's probably some way to fit in the flyovers.

[orulz]

NCDOT is trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding from the president's administration designating the US 264 corridor as an Interstate corridor. I guess this is possibly some way that an interstate can be designated without it being written into law AND without AASHTO/FHWA assent?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article114682003.html

[froggie]

Kinda sorta not really.  Given Federal rules (which have the force of law given the Federal rulemaking process), it would still require NCDOT to have a plan to complete said Interstate within 25 years.  Without additional funding, that means NCDOT would have to pull funding from other existing or proposed projects.

[LM117]

NCDOT is trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding from the president's administration designating the US 264 corridor as an Interstate corridor. I guess this is possibly some way that an interstate can be designated without it being written into law AND without AASHTO/FHWA assent?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article114682003.html

Has that ever been done before? That's an odd move, even for NC. Today is AASHTO's final day of their fall meeting. Judging by the article, it seems that AASHTO's SCOH did not overturn USRN Committee's initial rejection of Future I-587.

At any rate, I think it'll happen. I assume I-587 is still (hopefully) the preferred number?

[vdeane]

The FHWA serves under the president (the head of USDOT, FHWA's parent agency, is the Secretary of Transportation).  North Carolina is essentially asking Obama to order the FHWA to designate the interstate.

[wdcrft63]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

[LM117]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Looks like I stand corrected when I guessed earlier that AASHTO's SCOH didn't approve Future I-587. I'm glad I was wrong!

[The Ghostbuster]

At least this Interstate 587 will have a direct connection with Interstate 87, unlike existing Interstate 587 in Kingston, NY where traffic has to utilize a traffic-circle to access the New York Thruway.

[WashuOtaku]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason. 

[LM117]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.

[WashuOtaku]

AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.

I-69 E/C/W is a joke, should never been approved.

[hbelkins]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

Government officials tend to not issue press releases like this unless they're true.

[sparker]

Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.

Yet another example of how, for better or worse, political will tends to trump (no pun intended!) "bottom-up" objections to a goal desired by groups or figures wielding a good deal of influence.  The original AASHTO rationale for rejecting the future I-587 request was that the action (a) wasn't absolutely needed, and (b) was applied to a route with a number of substandard features.  Right or wrong, that decision was eventually upended because (a) was a moot point and (b) other similar facilities had received future I-designations.  In this instance it was a combination of NCDOT and the local backers that turned the tide -- the loudest and most persistent faction ended up in the "win" column. 

I wonder if the 3di nature of the request -- "just" an auxiliary route to one that had been vetted & approved several months previously rather than yet another intrastate trunk was, in the final run, one of the factors prompting AASHTO's reversal; that perhaps the convolutions that surrounded the designation of I-87 & I-42 earlier in the year were a result of deeper and more demanding deliberations vis-à-vis these more recent events -- an effective "double standard" , if you will!