What is the purpose of this bypass? It is proposed to run from I-140/US 17 Wilmington Bypass and future Military Cutoff Road extension just north of Wilmington to US 17 north of Hampstead.
Is the state still trying to turn U.S. 17 into a interstate? There are already interstate standard bypasses for Jacksonville, New Bern (co-signed with US 70/Future I-42), Williamson (co-signed with US 64/Future I-87) and Elizabeth City (future I-87), The Maysville and Pollocksville bypass that is currently under construction will be built to interstate standards (except for each end of the bypass) but of course is what is coming is the future I-87 in the future that will mostly use existing US 17, which obviously will have to be widened to interstate standards.
I don't live in that area so hopefully someone will tell me if they know something about it.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/
The only part of US-17 that is planned to become an interstate is the part that will be I-87. NCDOT does want to eventually upgrade US-17 to a freeway through the whole state, though. The section of US-17 that is co-signed with US-70/Future I-42 near/in New Bern does not yet meet interstate standards due to narrow shoulders. Only the part between US-70 and US-17 Business west of New Bern is interstate standard. That bypass will eventually be extended north to connect with US-17 north of New Bern, so the US-17/US-70 concurrency is only temporary.
It's been many years since I passed through Hampstead, but I remember traffic being pretty bad there, especially during the summer months. The Hampstead Bypass could become an eastern extension of I-140. The section of the Wilmington Bypass east of I-40 is not yet part of I-140, so this could explain why. NCDOT has made no mention of any eastward I-140 extension.
^ Following FHWA general criteria for "logical termini" for Interstates, such an extension would have to reach at least NC 172 (if not all the way to Jacksonville) before it could become an Interstate.
Quote from: LM117 on June 29, 2017, 05:09:40 AM
The only part of US-17 that is planned to become an interstate is the part that will be I-87. NCDOT does want to eventually upgrade US-17 to a freeway through the whole state, though. The section of US-17 that is co-signed with US-70/Future I-42 near/in New Bern does not yet meet interstate standards due to narrow shoulders. Only the part between US-70 and US-17 Business west of New Bern is interstate standard. That bypass will eventually be extended north to connect with US-17 north of New Bern, so the US-17/US-70 concurrency is only temporary.
It's been many years since I passed through Hampstead, but I remember traffic being pretty bad there, especially during the summer months. The Hampstead Bypass could become an eastern extension of I-140. The section of the Wilmington Bypass east of I-40 is not yet part of I-140, so this could explain why. NCDOT has made no mention of any eastward I-140 extension.
I don't think the Hampstead Bypass will be a part of I-140. I do know it is planned to be a part of US 17. I-140 is proposed to extend east to end at US 17/US 17 Business northeast of Wilmington provided that the route is approved.
I don't live there either, but I passed through the Wilmington area this weekend going between the Baltimore, Maryland area and Myrtle Beach, and I'm really hoping for the Wilmington Bypass to be fully open as soon as possible.
Here's the NCDOT project page: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/)
Resurrecting this thread so this doesn't get buried in the general NC thread:
This video was uploaded recently showing what I imagine is the latest preliminary design. The northern terminus has been revised to a simple trumpet interchange, with the bypass having continuity. The previous design still on the project's site is a weird hybrid left-exit thing (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Documents/jenkins-us-17-map.pdf), and the earliest design (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Documents/Final%20Compiled%20Maps%20US%2017%20Bypass%20CIW.pdf) I saw had two separate trumpet connections at the northern end (see sheets 5 and 6), while this latest design only has one.
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
They changed that to a trumpet interchange? That's a very good move. It's more of a freeway than an expressway look.
I think I still like the oldest (two trumpets) interchange design. But they probably didn't do it because you would have to make an extra right turn (which is no biggie). But still, I think the very first alternative was the one to go IMO. I'm not sure if they would bring that alternative back.
Alternative 1 (two trumpets) Best IMO
Alternative 2 (hybrid left turn) Bad
Alternative 3 (one trumpet) Adequate
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
They changed that to a trumpet interchange? That's a very good move. It's more of a freeway than an expressway look.
I think I still like the oldest (two trumpets) interchange design. But they probably didn't do it because you would have to make an extra right turn (which is no biggie). But still, I think the very first alternative was the one to go IMO. I'm not sure if they would bring that alternative back.
Alternative 1 (two trumpets) Best IMO
Alternative 2 (hybrid left turn) Bad
Alternative 3 (one trumpet) Adequate
I fail to see how the original proposal with two trumpets is better than the latest with one. It's overbuilt and unneeded IMO.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 08:02:15 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
They changed that to a trumpet interchange? That's a very good move. It's more of a freeway than an expressway look.
I think I still like the oldest (two trumpets) interchange design. But they probably didn't do it because you would have to make an extra right turn (which is no biggie). But still, I think the very first alternative was the one to go IMO. I'm not sure if they would bring that alternative back.
Alternative 1 (two trumpets) Best IMO
Alternative 2 (hybrid left turn) Bad
Alternative 3 (one trumpet) Adequate
I fail to see how the original proposal with two trumpets is better than the latest with one. It's overbuilt and unneeded IMO.
Just like they removed the loop on the NC 210 interchange. And (This is the SW bypass old plan) a bigger road at Davenport Farm Rd when it joins US264A/US13. And for the exit ramps have 1 lane split in to 3 and 4 at US 13 and US 264A.
Also, the NC 140 interchange at the military cutoff extension used to have 3 flyovers proposed.
I can't find the link but i know it used to be 3 flyovers and it was from 140 eastbound to military cutoff rd (southbound).
One day I would to see the little simulated cars being involved in a high speed chase with cop cars.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on December 08, 2019, 09:41:53 PM
One day I would to see the little simulated cars being involved in a high speed chase with cop cars.
So that's the reason you think why the very first alternative (2 trumpets) is better than the latest one with one trumpet? Because people would have to make many turns and that's all.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 08:02:15 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
They changed that to a trumpet interchange? That's a very good move. It's more of a freeway than an expressway look.
I think I still like the oldest (two trumpets) interchange design. But they probably didn't do it because you would have to make an extra right turn (which is no biggie). But still, I think the very first alternative was the one to go IMO. I'm not sure if they would bring that alternative back.
Alternative 1 (two trumpets) Best IMO
Alternative 2 (hybrid left turn) Bad
Alternative 3 (one trumpet) Adequate
I fail to see how the original proposal with two trumpets is better than the latest with one. It's overbuilt and unneeded IMO.
And how was it overbuilt with two trumpets?
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 28, 2019, 05:47:49 PM
And how was it overbuilt with two trumpets?
Are the traffic demands heavy enough to warrant two trumpets?
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 28, 2019, 05:52:46 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 28, 2019, 05:47:49 PM
And how was it overbuilt with two trumpets?
Are the traffic demands heavy enough to warrant two trumpets?
I guess not and that first design was a little weird. I'm glad they changed it.
Any updates on the Military Cutoff Road project? I haven't seen anything on that project in a while.
According to the NCDOT project site:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)
The Military Cutoff extension project should be completed in the spring of 2023, the US 17 Bypass part of the project won't start until late in 2022.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 08:02:15 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
^ I saw that a few weeks ago, and am glad for the change.
The I-140 connection still lacks continuity, but at least they got it right here.
The original proposed one was just a confusing cluster of ramps and signals that was unnecessary.
The new design also extends the freeway / limited-access design an additional 2,000 feet northwards, and if NCDOT decides to later upgrade the rest of US-17 up to Jacksonville or Pollocksville to interstate standards, it makes it a lot easier of a transition, notably with the extended southern frontage road. Though with the urban superstreet design with sidewalks and curb / gutter extending another mile northwards, who knows.
They changed that to a trumpet interchange? That's a very good move. It's more of a freeway than an expressway look.
I think I still like the oldest (two trumpets) interchange design. But they probably didn't do it because you would have to make an extra right turn (which is no biggie). But still, I think the very first alternative was the one to go IMO. I'm not sure if they would bring that alternative back.
Alternative 1 (two trumpets) Best IMO
Alternative 2 (hybrid left turn) Bad
Alternative 3 (one trumpet) Adequate
I fail to see how the original proposal with two trumpets is better than the latest with one. It's overbuilt and unneeded IMO.
Don't want to start a rant about this discussion again, but the first alternative with 2 trumpets was definitely better than the hybrid left turn (alternative 2).
Also, an advantage for alternative 1 is also hiding the schools in an area so it's not so busy.
Signage and drawings for the Hampstead Bypass can be seen here: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/10/nc-land-near-topsail-high-school-used-hampstead-bypass/6347037001/
QuotePlans for one section will extend the U.S. 17 Wilmington bypass to N.C. 210 and the other will extend from N.C. 210 to north of Hampstead. The estimated cost is $298 million, with funds coming from the State Transportation Improvement Program. Construction is scheduled to start in 2022, with an estimated completion date of 2030.
I wonder why it will take 8 years to do a highway project! That's EXTREMELY long...
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 23, 2021, 05:01:22 PM
Signage and drawings for the Hampstead Bypass can be seen here: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/10/nc-land-near-topsail-high-school-used-hampstead-bypass/6347037001/
QuotePlans for one section will extend the U.S. 17 Wilmington bypass to N.C. 210 and the other will extend from N.C. 210 to north of Hampstead. The estimated cost is $298 million, with funds coming from the State Transportation Improvement Program. Construction is scheduled to start in 2022, with an estimated completion date of 2030.
I wonder why it will take 8 years to do a highway project! That's EXTREMELY long...
For those who haven't checked out the plan, it appears NCDOT doesn't want to wait to have NC 417 designated on the Hampstead Bypass. Therefore the route will temporarily use NC 140 (Future I-140, marked on the plans as such), US 17 and NC 210 to get between Military Cutoff Road's end at NC 140 and the completed northern section of the Bypass. The temporary route will be marked by ground mounted signs only.
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2021, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 23, 2021, 05:01:22 PM
Signage and drawings for the Hampstead Bypass can be seen here: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/10/nc-land-near-topsail-high-school-used-hampstead-bypass/6347037001/
QuotePlans for one section will extend the U.S. 17 Wilmington bypass to N.C. 210 and the other will extend from N.C. 210 to north of Hampstead. The estimated cost is $298 million, with funds coming from the State Transportation Improvement Program. Construction is scheduled to start in 2022, with an estimated completion date of 2030.
I wonder why it will take 8 years to do a highway project! That's EXTREMELY long...
For those who haven't checked out the plan, it appears NCDOT doesn't want to wait to have NC 417 designated on the Hampstead Bypass. Therefore the route will temporarily use NC 140 (Future I-140, marked on the plans as such), US 17 and NC 210 to get between Military Cutoff Road's end at NC 140 and the completed northern section of the Bypass. The temporary route will be marked by ground mounted signs only.
Signage plans have been released for the section between NC 210 and US 17/NC 210.
It appears NC 417 will be marked on the new segment, plus NC 210 east back to US 17, then south with US 17, then replacing NC 140. It also appears that once fully finished back to present NC 140, NC 210 will not be placed on it where it could bypass Hampstead.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/PENDER_40237.3.3_R-3300B_C204553/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf
Quote from: Mapmikey on December 23, 2021, 01:37:08 PM
Quote from: bob7374 on November 23, 2021, 10:47:55 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on November 23, 2021, 05:01:22 PM
Signage and drawings for the Hampstead Bypass can be seen here: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/
https://www.starnewsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/10/nc-land-near-topsail-high-school-used-hampstead-bypass/6347037001/
QuotePlans for one section will extend the U.S. 17 Wilmington bypass to N.C. 210 and the other will extend from N.C. 210 to north of Hampstead. The estimated cost is $298 million, with funds coming from the State Transportation Improvement Program. Construction is scheduled to start in 2022, with an estimated completion date of 2030.
I wonder why it will take 8 years to do a highway project! That's EXTREMELY long...
For those who haven't checked out the plan, it appears NCDOT doesn't want to wait to have NC 417 designated on the Hampstead Bypass. Therefore the route will temporarily use NC 140 (Future I-140, marked on the plans as such), US 17 and NC 210 to get between Military Cutoff Road's end at NC 140 and the completed northern section of the Bypass. The temporary route will be marked by ground mounted signs only.
Signage plans have been released for the section between NC 210 and US 17/NC 210.
It appears NC 417 will be marked on the new segment, plus NC 210 east back to US 17, then south with US 17, then replacing NC 140. It also appears that once fully finished back to present NC 140, NC 210 will not be placed on it where it could bypass Hampstead.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/PENDER_40237.3.3_R-3300B_C204553/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf
I was definitely holding out hope NCDOT would try to make it an extension of I-140. Conceptually it makes since, you have one Interstate number to bypass US 17 from Hampstead to Winnabow and if you're gonna put "To I-40" signs everywhere it makes sense to sign it as a 40 spur. But 417 will be cool regardless.
Skip to 6:06 in this video and you will see the Military Cutoff road extension facing south.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjnfAeiXums&ab_channel=NCDOTcommunications
Edit: Fixed video that was unavailable
Construction on the Hampstead Bypass will start tomorrow
https://www.wect.com/2022/03/09/ncdot-staff-break-ground-hampstead-bypass-friday/
The Military Cutoff Extension opened this week from Market Street to NC 140. Don't know if it is signed as NC 417 as it's supposed to be when the northern part of the Hampstead Bypass is opened:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-29-ncdot-now.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-29-ncdot-now.aspx)
Quote from: bob7374 on September 29, 2023, 05:21:39 PM
The Military Cutoff Extension opened this week from Market Street to NC 140. Don't know if it is signed as NC 417 as it's supposed to be when the northern part of the Hampstead Bypass is opened:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-29-ncdot-now.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-29-ncdot-now.aspx)
It is based on rickmastfan67's post on the Travel Mapping Forum.
QuoteQuote from: rickmastfan67 on September 29, 2023, 02:19:52 AM
Route is now open.
https://www.wect.com/2023/09/28/monumental-day-military-cutoff-road-extension-open-drivers-after-more-than-ten-years-planning-construction/
Video @ that link confirms route number as NC-417. Shield is shown @ the 1:45 mark.
So, only thing left to confirm is the exit number on NC-140.
The Military Cutoff Rd. extension is shown as completed on Google Maps, but it is not marked as NC 417 or any other designation besides its street name.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 07:43:36 PM
The Military Cutoff Rd. extension is shown as completed on Google Maps, but it is not marked as NC 417 or any other designation besides its street name.
We already know it's signed as NC 417. Why is it useful in any way to mention that the Goog doesn't show it as such?
If anybody checks this out, please find out the exit number for it on NC-140. That's the only thing we need to put this in TM. :cool:
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 30, 2023, 09:05:40 PM
If anybody checks this out, please find out the exit number for it on NC-140. That's the only thing we need to put this in TM. :cool:
According to the sign plans I have for the Hampstead Bypass project:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/nc417signplanmilcutoffexit23.jpg)
Quote from: bob7374 on September 30, 2023, 09:32:19 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 30, 2023, 09:05:40 PM
If anybody checks this out, please find out the exit number for it on NC-140. That's the only thing we need to put this in TM. :cool:
According to the sign plans I have for the Hampstead Bypass project:
(https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/nc417signplanmilcutoffexit23.jpg)
Had a feeling that it would be '23', but we've seen NCDOT randomly change numbers before. :-D That's why I hope in-field proof will show up sooner or later.
Quote from: NE2 on September 29, 2023, 09:53:25 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 07:43:36 PM
The Military Cutoff Rd. extension is shown as completed on Google Maps, but it is not marked as NC 417 or any other designation besides its street name.
We already know it's signed as NC 417. Why is it useful in any way to mention that the Goog doesn't show it as such?
I guess Google maps is still the more popular online map despite competition from OpenStreetMap, Bing Maps, Apple Maps, Mapquest, etc...
I prefer Google Maps due to the Google Street View option. Google Maps may jump-the-gun, and not update their satellite view as often as I would like, but I find the Street View option to be second to none.