Regional Boards > Southeast
North Carolina
froggie:
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
cowboy_wilhelm:
Looking south at the future U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass from Old U.S. 221.
Looking south towards the U.S. 64 interchange.
Looking north at the future U.S. 64 overpass from current U.S. 64.
jdunlop:
--- Quote from: froggie on May 23, 2023, 09:18:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: Dirt Roads on May 22, 2023, 10:35:56 PM ---
--- Quote from: wdcrft63 on May 22, 2023, 05:44:15 PM ---There are indeed specific numbering rules. Bureaucrats have been known to make mistakes in applying specific rules. They did in this case. The number 540 is a mistake. The discussion in the forum is about whether this mistake should be corrected. Reasonable people can disagree about this and airing disagreements honestly is an important function of an online forum.
--- End quote ---
Does anybody remember whether it was the FHWA or AASHTO that rejected NCDOT's original request to number the Raleigh Northern Arc as I-640? I've tried searching several times and can no longer find this information in the NCDOT archives (nor any of the Roadgeek listings). [Indeed, I was skeptical about whether North Carolina could build a qualified "loop" to deserve an "even 3DI", but nobody expected the Triangle to grow to over 2 million almost overnight].
--- End quote ---
Did some digging:
* Nothing I was able to find in the AASHTO SCOH minutes suggests that they rejected 640.
* Per Brian LeBlanc's former I-540 webpage, NCDOT decided in 2002 that they would retain the 540 number instead of requesting it be changes to 640 upon completion.
* NCDOT further clarified this in their 2013 request for I-495. I was able to find that letter (3rd page of the PDF) in the NCDOT Route Changes dataset. Their letter to FHWA requested that 540 remain as such "due to public expectation, historic controversy, and economic burden of sign replacement.". They further cite precedents in I-376 PA, I-390 NY, and I-590 NY.
--- End quote ---
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.) The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40. (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years. Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)
So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion. If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
LM117:
Traffic shift tonight on I-440 at Wade Avenue.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-31-i-440-wade-traffic-shift-closure.aspx
wdcrft63:
--- Quote ---My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.) The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40. (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years. Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)
So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion. If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
--- End quote ---
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version