AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: North Carolina  (Read 959388 times)

PColumbus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 526
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Last Login: October 05, 2022, 08:34:23 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #675 on: February 04, 2016, 07:16:55 PM »

That design is quite fascinating
Logged

mvak36

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1217
  • Last Login: Today at 10:42:01 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #676 on: February 04, 2016, 08:04:56 PM »

You can make a U turn on it   :)
« Last Edit: February 05, 2016, 09:40:25 AM by mvak36 »
Logged
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7593
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:13:51 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #677 on: February 05, 2016, 11:22:25 AM »

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.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

MazdaStrider

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 26
  • Location: Greensboro, NC
  • Last Login: July 20, 2016, 12:03:08 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #678 on: February 05, 2016, 11:30:13 AM »

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
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1363
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:42 AM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #679 on: February 14, 2016, 02:20:52 PM »

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
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 02:24:35 PM by CanesFan27 »
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1363
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:42 AM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #680 on: February 15, 2016, 11:49:30 AM »

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!
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4082
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 53
  • Last Login: Today at 06:58:36 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #681 on: February 15, 2016, 12:46:05 PM »

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

Quote
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

Logged

PColumbus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 526
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Myrtle Beach, SC
  • Last Login: October 05, 2022, 08:34:23 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #682 on: February 15, 2016, 07:33:15 PM »

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

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12564
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:08:22 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #683 on: February 15, 2016, 08:27:10 PM »

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

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 847
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:36:34 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #684 on: February 16, 2016, 07:03:17 PM »

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.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 847
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:36:34 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #685 on: February 17, 2016, 04:54:55 PM »

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.
Logged

Katavia

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 219
  • Age: 20
  • Location: Kannapolis, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:21 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #686 on: February 20, 2016, 08:10:23 AM »

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

Quote
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?
Logged
Pizza delivery driver with a penchant for roadgeekery.
On nearly every other online platform I go by Kurzov.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12564
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: Today at 10:08:22 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #687 on: February 20, 2016, 12:31:20 PM »

Quote from: Katavia
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.
Logged

jwolfer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2037
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Jacksonville, FL
  • Last Login: November 09, 2019, 11:16:34 AM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #688 on: February 20, 2016, 12:52:08 PM »

Quote from: Katavia
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
Logged

Thing 342

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1381
  • Age: 25
  • Location: VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:27:56 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #689 on: February 20, 2016, 01:02:51 PM »

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

Quote
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.
Logged

CanesFan27

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1363
  • Last Login: Today at 08:04:42 AM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #690 on: February 20, 2016, 01:04:18 PM »

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.

Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1789
  • Age: 58
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: January 28, 2023, 11:58:39 AM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #691 on: February 20, 2016, 04:57:46 PM »

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

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 39
  • Widen I-77 & The 85 Widening Committee

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Landis, North Cackalacky
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 01:03:41 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #692 on: February 25, 2016, 06:44:42 AM »

Interstate 11 should be a designation

I-11: From Vegas to Havelock

« Last Edit: February 25, 2016, 01:06:02 PM by ReeseFerlautoI74/85 »
Logged
If it is possible to cancel tolls on I-77, general purpose lanes should be the only option! In the words of Kurt Naas, 'complete and delete!'

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3719
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 02:28:54 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #693 on: February 25, 2016, 03:55:15 PM »

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

ReeseFerlautoI74/85

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 39
  • Widen I-77 & The 85 Widening Committee

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Landis, North Cackalacky
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 01:03:41 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #694 on: February 25, 2016, 05:24:52 PM »

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

Logged
If it is possible to cancel tolls on I-77, general purpose lanes should be the only option! In the words of Kurt Naas, 'complete and delete!'

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 847
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: Today at 10:36:34 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #695 on: February 25, 2016, 06:28:01 PM »

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.
Logged

national highway 1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1670
  • From Down Under

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Carlingford, NSW, Australia
  • Last Login: September 06, 2022, 10:07:06 AM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #696 on: February 25, 2016, 06:32:23 PM »

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.
Logged
"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21

ReeseFerlautoI74/85

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 39
  • Widen I-77 & The 85 Widening Committee

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Landis, North Cackalacky
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 01:03:41 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #697 on: February 25, 2016, 06:34:07 PM »

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

Logged
If it is possible to cancel tolls on I-77, general purpose lanes should be the only option! In the words of Kurt Naas, 'complete and delete!'

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13835
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 11:05:53 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #698 on: February 25, 2016, 06:36:24 PM »

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.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

The Nature Boy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1528
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: January 25, 2023, 08:44:32 PM
Re: North Carolina
« Reply #699 on: February 25, 2016, 08:44:19 PM »

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.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.