News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Greensboro "Death Valley" -- 40 to Green 40 to 40 again. Why?

Started by hbelkins, December 20, 2017, 10:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

hbelkins

When the southern bypass of Greensboro was built, I-40 was moved to it and the old route through "Death Valley" became Business I-40. The interchange on the western side of town was even configured to have I-40 traffic on the left and Business 40 traffic exit to the right. Then the designations were changed. I-40 was put back on the downtown route, and the new route was signed (I think) as I-73 and US 421. Why was I-40 taken off the new route and put back through downtown? I thought it was for funding reasons; that the feds would not pay for maintenance or improvements on Green 40 but would pay if it remained regular 40. Others have said it was because of complaints about road noise created by the increased traffic on the new southern I-40 route. Can anyone answer definitively?


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.


Mapmikey

Quote from: hbelkins on December 20, 2017, 10:19:27 AM
When the southern bypass of Greensboro was built, I-40 was moved to it and the old route through "Death Valley" became Business I-40. The interchange on the western side of town was even configured to have I-40 traffic on the left and Business 40 traffic exit to the right. Then the designations were changed. I-40 was put back on the downtown route, and the new route was signed (I think) as I-73 and US 421. Why was I-40 taken off the new route and put back through downtown? I thought it was for funding reasons; that the feds would not pay for maintenance or improvements on Green 40 but would pay if it remained regular 40. Others have said it was because of complaints about road noise created by the increased traffic on the new southern I-40 route. Can anyone answer definitively?

Here is the exact reason, confusion AND noise - https://archive.is/20121224201107/https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/pio/releases/details.aspx?r=1854


froggie

I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.

Rothman

Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.


Hm.  You sure Business I-40 was considered a non-Interstate?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

froggie


WashuOtaku

Quote from: Rothman on December 20, 2017, 05:27:43 PM
Hm.  You sure Business I-40 was considered a non-Interstate?

Yes, even AASHTO doesn't bother with recognizing it. They sometimes have states submitting requests and they return it saying they don't care.

Rothman

I've got no evidence either way, but mentioning IM just reminded me of the mess in NYC when it came to IM eligibility.  Portions of signed I-278 were not eligible, for instance.  Went through a mess with that a few years ago as NYSDOT tried to mop up its outstanding IM obligation limitation.

The issue is that IM eligibility was actually outlined in 23 U.S.C. itself and referred to the interstate system as defined at such-and-such a date in some old document and those shortcut references for system definition became obsolete or problematic.  What happened in the federal code is that you ended up with certain key dates where the interstate system was being updated or expanded by FHWA, but the law did not recognize all of the new portions of it due to the bad references to old definitions of the system (probably out of ignorance of whoever wrote up the actual bills and code), hence the NYC mess.  Of course, FHWA adhered to the letter of law rather than its spirit and states had to keep track of what was eligible for IM and what wasn't in order for FHWA to sign off on the authorizations.

Doesn't matter now that everything's lumped together, but with the loony evolution of interstates in Greensboro, I just wondered if Greensboro got cut up in the same mess NYC did.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

hbelkins

Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.

That's why I brought it up. I remember the funding thing as well, which made me wonder why North Carolina signed a green I-40 through Winston-Salem after that route was bypassed, and funding was never an issue. Seems to me that the better option would have been to make the older northernmost route through Winston-Salem and Greensboro an x40, with a concurrency with I-40 between the two cities; or keep I-40 on the old route and sign the two newest routes (south of W-S and the loop southwest of Greensboro) as an x40.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Strider

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.

That's why I brought it up. I remember the funding thing as well, which made me wonder why North Carolina signed a green I-40 through Winston-Salem after that route was bypassed, and funding was never an issue. Seems to me that the better option would have been to make the older northernmost route through Winston-Salem and Greensboro an x40, with a concurrency with I-40 between the two cities; or keep I-40 on the old route and sign the two newest routes (south of W-S and the loop southwest of Greensboro) as an x40.


SMH.

LM117

I would've signed the whole Greensboro loop as I-840 (I-73 & I-785 overlaps notwithstanding) and left I-85 on it's original alignment.

As for Winston-Salem, I would've used I-640 for Business 40. It's the only even-numbered I-x40 left.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

wdcrft63

Quote from: LM117 on December 21, 2017, 05:53:16 PM
I would've signed the whole Greensboro loop as I-840 (I-73 & I-785 overlaps notwithstanding) and left I-85 on it's original alignment.

As for Winston-Salem, I would've used I-640 for Business 40. It's the only even-numbered I-x40 left.

IMO the present route configuration at Greensboro works pretty well. It diverts the I-85 through traffic away from Death Valley and shortens the I-40/85 concurrency.

It's interesting that Greensboro wanted to keep its urban interstate (I-40/Death Valley), but Winston-Salem does not want Business 40 to be an interstate. This is a counterexample for everyone who thinks that NC will eventually have an interstate shield on every freeway.

hbelkins

Quote from: Strider on December 21, 2017, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.

That's why I brought it up. I remember the funding thing as well, which made me wonder why North Carolina signed a green I-40 through Winston-Salem after that route was bypassed, and funding was never an issue. Seems to me that the better option would have been to make the older northernmost route through Winston-Salem and Greensboro an x40, with a concurrency with I-40 between the two cities; or keep I-40 on the old route and sign the two newest routes (south of W-S and the loop southwest of Greensboro) as an x40.


SMH.

:pan: :banghead:

Of course you would SYH. My idea makes logical sense. Have one long continuous I-40 and one long continuous x40 with a short overlap in the middle between Greensboro and Winston-Salem. There would have been no question about federal funding for the route then.

I'm old enough to have actually been on the route through downtown Winston-Salem when it was regular I-40, and when I-40 ended in Greensboro and the extension to Raleigh and Wilmington probably wasn't even on the books as a proposal.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Strider

Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 10:07:04 PM
Quote from: Strider on December 21, 2017, 05:40:09 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 21, 2017, 01:00:00 PM
Quote from: froggie on December 20, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
I want to say there was an article mentioning the funding thing, but it was primarily brought up by roadgeeks.  This was back when Interstate Maintenance (IM) was still a Federal funding category.  The funny thing is, it was only a 10% difference between what FHWA would reimburse for a non-Interstate NHS route (i.e. Business I-40) and an Interstate route.  Business 40 would have been eligible for up to 80% Federal reimbursement for projects, but it also would have competed against other state and U.S. routes for that funding.  As an Interstate, I-40 was eligible for up to 90% Federal reimbursement, and there was the IM funding category that NCDOT could use.  IM has since gone away, getting rolled into NHS funding.

That's why I brought it up. I remember the funding thing as well, which made me wonder why North Carolina signed a green I-40 through Winston-Salem after that route was bypassed, and funding was never an issue. Seems to me that the better option would have been to make the older northernmost route through Winston-Salem and Greensboro an x40, with a concurrency with I-40 between the two cities; or keep I-40 on the old route and sign the two newest routes (south of W-S and the loop southwest of Greensboro) as an x40.


SMH.

:pan: :banghead:

Of course you would SYH. My idea makes logical sense. Have one long continuous I-40 and one long continuous x40 with a short overlap in the middle between Greensboro and Winston-Salem. There would have been no question about federal funding for the route then.

I'm old enough to have actually been on the route through downtown Winston-Salem when it was regular I-40, and when I-40 ended in Greensboro and the extension to Raleigh and Wilmington probably wasn't even on the books as a proposal.


Well, its done and there is nothing you can do. Thanks for your ideas though it is steering  a little bit into a fiction terrority. Happy Holidays.

mrsman

This thread is definitely illustrative of the notion that signage matters.  By resigning I-40 on a different highway, you moved some of the I-40 through traffic onto the other route.


wdcrft63

The original question ("why?") has a very simple answer. I-40 is on the old Death Valley route in Greensboro because folks in Greensboro (speaking through their elected representatives) wanted to keep it there. In Winston-Salem everyone seems quite clear that they definitely don't want I-40, or even Business 40, on the old route.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2017, 09:11:26 AMI've got no evidence either way, but mentioning IM just reminded me of the mess in NYC when it came to IM eligibility.  Portions of signed I-278 were not eligible, for instance.  Went through a mess with that a few years ago as NYSDOT tried to mop up its outstanding IM obligation limitation.

The issue is that IM eligibility was actually outlined in 23 U.S.C. itself and referred to the interstate system as defined at such-and-such a date in some old document and those shortcut references for system definition became obsolete or problematic.  What happened in the federal code is that you ended up with certain key dates where the interstate system was being updated or expanded by FHWA, but the law did not recognize all of the new portions of it due to the bad references to old definitions of the system (probably out of ignorance of whoever wrote up the actual bills and code), hence the NYC mess.  Of course, FHWA adhered to the letter of law rather than its spirit and states had to keep track of what was eligible for IM and what wasn't in order for FHWA to sign off on the authorizations.

Doesn't matter now that everything's lumped together, but with the loony evolution of interstates in Greensboro, I just wondered if Greensboro got cut up in the same mess NYC did.

I can remember a MTR thread in which the issue of IM eligibility for Green 40 was discussed.  One of the participants was Jim Dunlop, a NCDOT engineer (and colleague of John Lansford) who may have had some involvement in the decisionmaking process.  I pointed out that Green 80 in Sacramento was part of hidden I-305 and so NCDOT could conceptually use a hidden designation to keep FHWA on the hook for IM for Green 40.  No one else commenting in the thread seemed able to say what, if any, role such a possibility played in the decisions to create and then retire the Green 40 designation.

As for IM eligibility in general, I was not aware that for pre-2003 Interstates this was contingent upon the route being properly specified in a document incorporated by reference into legislation.  What I know is that FHWA turned the IM tap off for Interstates built after 2003, and this has factored into roadgeek discussions about whether it really makes sense to chase Interstate designations for new freeways (as NCDOT has also done to a huge degree).
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Strider

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 25, 2018, 05:04:50 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 21, 2017, 09:11:26 AMI've got no evidence either way, but mentioning IM just reminded me of the mess in NYC when it came to IM eligibility.  Portions of signed I-278 were not eligible, for instance.  Went through a mess with that a few years ago as NYSDOT tried to mop up its outstanding IM obligation limitation.

The issue is that IM eligibility was actually outlined in 23 U.S.C. itself and referred to the interstate system as defined at such-and-such a date in some old document and those shortcut references for system definition became obsolete or problematic.  What happened in the federal code is that you ended up with certain key dates where the interstate system was being updated or expanded by FHWA, but the law did not recognize all of the new portions of it due to the bad references to old definitions of the system (probably out of ignorance of whoever wrote up the actual bills and code), hence the NYC mess.  Of course, FHWA adhered to the letter of law rather than its spirit and states had to keep track of what was eligible for IM and what wasn't in order for FHWA to sign off on the authorizations.

Doesn't matter now that everything's lumped together, but with the loony evolution of interstates in Greensboro, I just wondered if Greensboro got cut up in the same mess NYC did.

I can remember a MTR thread in which the issue of IM eligibility for Green 40 was discussed.  One of the participants was Jim Dunlop, a NCDOT engineer (and colleague of John Lansford) who may have had some involvement in the decisionmaking process.  I pointed out that Green 80 in Sacramento was part of hidden I-305 and so NCDOT could conceptually use a hidden designation to keep FHWA on the hook for IM for Green 40.  No one else commenting in the thread seemed able to say what, if any, role such a possibility played in the decisions to create and then retire the Green 40 designation.

As for IM eligibility in general, I was not aware that for pre-2003 Interstates this was contingent upon the route being properly specified in a document incorporated by reference into legislation.  What I know is that FHWA turned the IM tap off for Interstates built after 2003, and this has factored into roadgeek discussions about whether it really makes sense to chase Interstate designations for new freeways (as NCDOT has also done to a huge degree).


From what I heard from the locals in Winston-Salem, people who are new to the area got "confused" with two 40's, hence why the locals lobbied for Green 40 to be dropped and rename it Salem Parkway (US 421). Also, when emergency personnels respond to any incident on Green 40, they refer to the freeway as US 421, not Green 40.

Greensboro's Green 40 became I-40 again so it can be eligible for federal funds, confusion by travelers, and businesses complaints. They're dropping Business 85 in Greensboro area as well. Who knows what will happen to the original Business 85 once I-285 is being signed in Lexington area... (I won't be surprised if they drop it).

The Ghostbuster

Once Business 40 is gone from Winston-Salem, will the freeway's exit numbers be renumbered to correspond with US 421's mileage? Or will they remain unchanged?

wdcrft63

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:04:52 PM
Once Business 40 is gone from Winston-Salem, will the freeway's exit numbers be renumbered to correspond with US 421's mileage? Or will they remain unchanged?
Good question. The Green 40 exit numbering runs west to east, but US 421 numbering runs the other way because 421 is signed as a north-south route. I'm hoping the exit numbers will be changed to match the US 421 numbers; it would seem very confusing otherwise.

Strider

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:04:52 PM
Once Business 40 is gone from Winston-Salem, will the freeway's exit numbers be renumbered to correspond with US 421's mileage? Or will they remain unchanged?


I think the exit numbers will change to match US 421's mileage, although they have not said anything about it.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Strider on February 25, 2018, 07:42:23 PMGreensboro's Green 40 became I-40 again so it can be eligible for federal funds, confusion by travelers, and businesses complaints.

That's just it--I don't understand why federal funding was even a factor, since the precedent of Business 80 in Sacramento suggests that NCDOT could have used a hidden Interstate designation to maintain IM eligibility for Green 40 even if they chose not to spend any of their federal funding allocation on it.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

WashuOtaku

Quote from: Strider on March 01, 2018, 10:28:20 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:04:52 PM
Once Business 40 is gone from Winston-Salem, will the freeway's exit numbers be renumbered to correspond with US 421's mileage? Or will they remain unchanged?
I think the exit numbers will change to match US 421's mileage, although they have not said anything about it.

They likely will change the exit numbers, NCDOT is good about doing those things.  The whole thing will happen when the construction is finished, a re-christening will happen then.

WashuOtaku

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 01, 2018, 11:08:27 AM
Quote from: Strider on February 25, 2018, 07:42:23 PMGreensboro's Green 40 became I-40 again so it can be eligible for federal funds, confusion by travelers, and businesses complaints.
That's just it--I don't understand why federal funding was even a factor, since the precedent of Business 80 in Sacramento suggests that NCDOT could have used a hidden Interstate designation to maintain IM eligibility for Green 40 even if they chose not to spend any of their federal funding allocation on it.

The fact that part of I-80 Business is an unsigned Interstate spur means that section gets "Federal dollars" for maintenance and it is a big deal.  The reason though they hide it is for continuity purposes, because the eastern half would have no designation otherwise.  Also, NCDOT does not believe in hidden routes, with exception to a few business routes in Asheville and Raleigh.

If NCDOT wanted to replicate Caltrans method, they would first need to request an interstate designation from AASHTO/FHWA, which they would require things like improving the freeway to current Interstate standards.  I-40 benefited from grandfathered standards and did not complete all the paperwork when they made the decision to move it back along its former alignment.  What NCDOT did was the better option that didn't require any gap in funding.

On the bright side, NCDOT plans to install new signage that will indicate which route is fastest: I-40, I-85/I-73 or I-840.  This will be a major help for drivers, if they choose to use it.

J N Winkler

Quote from: WashuOtaku on March 01, 2018, 12:37:18 PMThe fact that part of I-80 Business is an unsigned Interstate spur means that section gets "Federal dollars" for maintenance and it is a big deal.  The reason though they hide it is for continuity purposes, because the eastern half would have no designation otherwise.  Also, NCDOT does not believe in hidden routes, with exception to a few business routes in Asheville and Raleigh.

If NCDOT wanted to replicate Caltrans method, they would first need to request an interstate designation from AASHTO/FHWA, which they would require things like improving the freeway to current Interstate standards.  I-40 benefited from grandfathered standards and did not complete all the paperwork when they made the decision to move it back along its former alignment.  What NCDOT did was the better option that didn't require any gap in funding.

As I understand it, Business 80 (which was originally mainline I-80) similarly benefited from grandfather protection, and was able to receive the hidden I-305 designation without any requirement to upgrade to current Interstate standards.  Assuming that NCDOT was able to play under the same rules, the mystery is why funding should be cited as a reason to return I-40 to its original routing, since with a hidden designation the road maintains IM eligibility regardless of whether it is part of mainline I-40.  I take the point that NCDOT doesn't like to do hidden designations, but for Green 40 it would have paid to make an exception in case the road needed pop-up 3R work and NCDOT was in a position to benefit from other states' unused IM funding.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

WashuOtaku

Quote from: J N Winkler on March 01, 2018, 01:24:43 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on March 01, 2018, 12:37:18 PMThe fact that part of I-80 Business is an unsigned Interstate spur means that section gets "Federal dollars" for maintenance and it is a big deal.  The reason though they hide it is for continuity purposes, because the eastern half would have no designation otherwise.  Also, NCDOT does not believe in hidden routes, with exception to a few business routes in Asheville and Raleigh.

If NCDOT wanted to replicate Caltrans method, they would first need to request an interstate designation from AASHTO/FHWA, which they would require things like improving the freeway to current Interstate standards.  I-40 benefited from grandfathered standards and did not complete all the paperwork when they made the decision to move it back along its former alignment.  What NCDOT did was the better option that didn't require any gap in funding.

As I understand it, Business 80 (which was originally mainline I-80) similarly benefited from grandfather protection, and was able to receive the hidden I-305 designation without any requirement to upgrade to current Interstate standards.  Assuming that NCDOT was able to play under the same rules, the mystery is why funding should be cited as a reason to return I-40 to its original routing, since with a hidden designation the road maintains IM eligibility regardless of whether it is part of mainline I-40.  I take the point that NCDOT doesn't like to do hidden designations, but for Green 40 it would have paid to make an exception in case the road needed pop-up 3R work and NCDOT was in a position to benefit from other states' unused IM funding.

I do not know where you are confirming your information that Caltrans is getting full maintenance funding from the Feds, but apparently NCDOT couldn't strike a similar deal (or SCDOT for that matter with Business 85 in Spartanburg).  Also, why bother with a business route when you can use a 3-digit interstate route?  If you haven't noticed, North Carolina is on a interstate spree.

The general rule is that Business Interstate routes are not maintained by the Federal government nor controlled by AASHTO or FHWA; in their view it is a state designation thus maintained by the state (not to be confused with US business routes, which are controlled by AASHTO).



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.