News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

North Carolina

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

WashuOtaku

At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report.

  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.


LM117

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 04, 2019, 09:40:10 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report.

  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.

No complaints from me. They make perfect sense.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

jcarte29

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 04, 2019, 09:40:10 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report.

  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.


It only makes sense on both proposals, western leg is still a couple decades from completion tho. I've always thought US 52 through center city deserved upgrading and promotion to interstate. Only my opinion though. Glad both are paper official.
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

mvak36

Quote from: WashuOtaku on June 04, 2019, 09:40:10 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report.

  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.

I was definitely surprised by the I-285 application. I was wondering if they would ever request the extension to I-74. Will be interesting to see when they actually finish both of these interstates. It seems like 274 will probably be completed first since it's programmed in the STIP, but that could always change.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

froggie

^ That is the "extension to I-74".  Where "I-285" will meet "I-274" is the same location it will meet I-74.  I-74 is planned to follow the eastern side of the Winston-Salem Beltway.

The Ghostbuster

I think future Interstate 274 (if approved) should only go from Interstate 40 to Future Interstates 74 and 285. The spur from US 158 to Interstate 40 should have a different designation, such as NC 274.

mvak36

Quote from: froggie on June 04, 2019, 02:56:30 PM
^ That is the "extension to I-74".  Where "I-285" will meet "I-274" is the same location it will meet I-74.  I-74 is planned to follow the eastern side of the Winston-Salem Beltway.

Sorry I meant it as extension from the current terminus of I-285 to the I-74/I-274 junction. Bad wording on my part. :pan:
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

WashuOtaku

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 04, 2019, 03:49:55 PM
I think future Interstate 274 (if approved) should only go from Interstate 40 to Future Interstates 74 and 285. The spur from US 158 to Interstate 40 should have a different designation, such as NC 274.

I do not know why you said "if approved," it is approved.  :-/

LM117

#2658
I still don't get why NCDOT didn't ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

jcarte29

Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:35:30 AM
I still don't get why NCDOT didn't ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

sprjus4

Quote from: jcarte29 on June 05, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:35:30 AM
I still don't get why NCDOT didn't ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?

Roadsguy

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 05, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:35:30 AM
I still don't get why NCDOT didn't ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?

I had heard that US 17 was staying put, and that the bypass would have a new number (NC 417). Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

sprjus4

Quote from: Roadsguy on June 05, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
That's my point. The long-distance corridor should have seamless continuity onto I-140 and vice versa creating one seamless freeway. I suppose it'll be another I-73 at Greensboro situation for long-distance traffic.

sparker

Quote from: Roadsguy on June 05, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 10:16:48 AM
Quote from: jcarte29 on June 05, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
Quote from: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:35:30 AM
I still don't get why NCDOT didn't ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?

I had heard that US 17 was staying put, and that the bypass would have a new number (NC 417). Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 08:26:10 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on June 05, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
That's my point. The long-distance corridor should have seamless continuity onto I-140 and vice versa creating one seamless freeway. I suppose it'll be another I-73 at Greensboro situation for long-distance traffic.

Hey -- at least the through (bypass/I-140) movement doesn't have to circumnavigate a loop; the flyover ramp is configured as a straight-line movement from NB 17, even if it isn't the leftmost set of lanes.  Out here, we who use I-5 say a big hello; NB there are TWO TOTSO's in the San Joaquin Valley (one at CA 99 and one at I-580); we've internalized those reasonably well.  All else considered, just be thankful that the bypass interchange NE of Wilmington is "conventionally" oriented, with the main traffic lanes turning onto the bypass.     

cowboy_wilhelm

The new roller coaster ramp from US 74 west to I-26 east has finally opened this week. It doesn't appear that NCDOT is planning to renumber the eastbound exit for US 74 to Exit 66 to match the westbound exit number and is keeping it as 67.

LM117

US-401 between NC-96 and NC-98 in northeastern Wake County is out of commission for a while.

https://www.wral.com/weekend-floodwaters-collapse-us-401-causing-issues-for-wake-drivers/18442230/
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

LM117

“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

ARMOURERERIC

This current rain event  has been epic One government rain guage near work had 12" of rain in 36 hours.  Near the area, US 321 under I-40 had water rescue action Friday night and parts of the freeway we're under 8" of water.

cowboy_wilhelm

Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 10, 2019, 09:10:34 PM
This current rain event  has been epic One government rain guage near work had 12" of rain in 36 hours.  Near the area, US 321 under I-40 had water rescue action Friday night and parts of the freeway we're under 8" of water.

And it's getting very expensive to keep up with. Landslides, washouts, culvert and bridge replacements. First Matthew and then Florence, and it's starting to impact available funding for new projects.

Hopefully DOT starts building higher bridges and larger culverts where feasible. I was at a meeting during Matthew recovery where a community brought up that DOT builds structures to accommodate the discharge and water surface elevation for "50-year" storm events, which is considered the typical lifespan for most hydraulic structures. The community also said those structures have been under water several times over the past decade, and that structures need to be built to accommodate the discharge from a 1-percent annual chance flood event (100-year).

Secretary Trogdon even mentioned this when discussing the recent 401 washout in Wake County. "Most of the primary roads in North Carolina are designed by standard to meet 50-year storms," Trogdon said during a news conference. "Seven and a half inches [of rain] in four hours ... that's a 1,000-year storm event."

We keep getting those. The 500-year storm is now the 100-year storm, the 100-year storm is now the 50-year storm, etc.

sprjus4


Beltway

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

sprjus4

#2671
Quote from: Beltway on June 13, 2019, 05:18:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 05:12:21 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-5870-2019-06-04.aspx
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-glenwood/Pages/concept-maps.aspx
What was NCDOT smoking when they came up with these concepts?

They were taking pot and getting all doped up.
The scary part is it's funded to begin construction in 2025. This isn't just some drawing - this might be reality  :no:

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if the area wasn't a flood prone area. It's just going to be worse.

Interesting... in the FAQs -

QuoteWill the project contribute to flooding in the Crabtree Valley area?
NCDOT is well aware of the flooding that occurs along Crabtree Creek during storm events, and the project's potential to impact the existing flood plain is a major consideration. As design options are developed, the project team will use a detailed computer model of the study area to determine whether the design options will increase flooding during storm events.

Options that increase the potential for flooding will not be considered. NCDOT will also investigate design measures and treatment options that further minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff within the study area.

And I'm pretty sure no EIS is planned for this either.

NE2

Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

sprjus4

Quote from: NE2 on June 13, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Well it is a major urban center. This will be interesting to see play out, especially if it's constructed as soon as 2025. As of now, it's fully funded at $230 million.

Beltway

Quote from: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 08:40:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 13, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Well it is a major urban center. This will be interesting to see play out, especially if it's constructed as soon as 2025. As of now, it's fully funded at $230 million.

Tysons Corner is the 15th largest central business district in the U.S., with more square feet of office space than downtown Pittsburgh.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)



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.