News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 73/74

Started by Voyager, January 18, 2009, 08:09:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bob7374

I've published my annual review of what happened with constructing I-73/I-74 and other NC new and future interstates on the Gribblenation blog:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2025/01/i-73i-74-and-nc-future-interstates-year.html


cowboy_wilhelm


PiedmontHwys

Finally! What took NCDOT so long to get that long-awaited bypass completed?
Hoping and waiting for the day the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway gets finished on time.

english si

It says it's going to be designated Future I-73/74. Seems strange NCDOT didn't already apply for proper I-73/74, especially as it is signed as proper I-73/74.

Great Lakes Roads

Random question, but where will US 220 end?
-Jay Seaburg

The Ghostbuster

Probably the same place it ends now. I don't see US 220 being realigned onto the bypass.

Chris

According to the NCDOT press release the bypass will be designated as US 220:

The 7.2-mile route is designated as U.S. 220/Future I-73/74 and is located from the U.S. 74 Business interchange west of Rockingham to Harrington Road.

Mapmikey

Quote from: Chris on January 26, 2025, 05:19:43 AMAccording to the NCDOT press release the bypass will be designated as US 220:

The 7.2-mile route is designated as U.S. 220/Future I-73/74 and is located from the U.S. 74 Business interchange west of Rockingham to Harrington Road.

All signage revealed in the field so far shows only I-73/74 on the new section.

74/171FAN

Quote from: Mapmikey on January 26, 2025, 08:14:06 AM
Quote from: Chris on January 26, 2025, 05:19:43 AMAccording to the NCDOT press release the bypass will be designated as US 220:

The 7.2-mile route is designated as U.S. 220/Future I-73/74 and is located from the U.S. 74 Business interchange west of Rockingham to Harrington Road.

All signage revealed in the field so far shows only I-73/74 on the new section.

Yeah, we put the NCDOT text for the In The News column on the main page of the AARoads Wiki because I recommended it be written that way based on this news release, but then I looked at Bob Malme's page and unsurprisingly was confused based on the signage. 
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?units=miles&u=markkos1992
Mob-Rule:  https://mob-rule.com/user/markkos1992

english si

I imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.

The Ghostbuster

US 220 was moved back onto its original alignment between Exits 25 and 41 in 2013. I agree that the rest of Alternate 220 and Business 220 should become part of mainline 220 again. Personally, as I've said before, I think US 220 should be truncated to Interstate 73's present northern terminus, but relocating 220 onto its old alignment between Exits 41 and 86 seems more likely to happen.

vdeane

Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

english si

Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
maybe, but in my head canon here they aren't going to ask permission for this first move and are lumping in the second move with moves of the route elsewhere.

I'd be very surprised if they ask AASHTO to formally move US220 onto the bypass.

sprjus4

What I'm confused with is why they're going to sign the bypass as US-220, and redesignate current US-220 to a business Route... then switch the business route back to the main one once I-73 is approved.

Either a) I-73/I-74 should've been approved upon completion of the project (approved in the fall or something to be signed when opened) or b) the new bypass should use a temporary state route placeholder (like NC 74 around Winston-Salem, use something like NC-x73 since NC-73 exists) OR be designated as BYPASS 220, then deleted once I-73 is put in place.

But no changes should happen on the existing business route unless you're getting rid of it altogether. Which in that case, do whatever.

Strider

Quote from: english si on January 29, 2025, 04:50:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
maybe, but in my head canon here they aren't going to ask permission for this first move and are lumping in the second move with moves of the route elsewhere.

I'd be very surprised if they ask AASHTO to formally move US220 onto the bypass.

That's NCDOT for you. Their decision-making can be bonkers. US-220 is not going to be on a bypass, so somebody in NCDOT made a mistake. I just emailed them about that... we shall see what they said.

bob7374

Quote from: Strider on January 29, 2025, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: english si on January 29, 2025, 04:50:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
maybe, but in my head canon here they aren't going to ask permission for this first move and are lumping in the second move with moves of the route elsewhere.

I'd be very surprised if they ask AASHTO to formally move US220 onto the bypass.

That's NCDOT for you. Their decision-making can be bonkers. US-220 is not going to be on a bypass, so somebody in NCDOT made a mistake. I just emailed them about that... we shall see what they said.
I have speculated on the SERoads and Tar Heel Roads FB groups that the Bypass press release was simply a quick edit of one of the early press releases at the start of the US 220 improvement portion of the project in 2014. At that time they had not gotten permission to sign the segment south of Ellerbe as I-73/I-74, that would happen in 2018. They also were proposing US 220 on the Bypass and a Business Loop 73/74 for current US 220, they decided to keep US 220 where it was later. IMO someone at the NCDOT media office didn't think check to see if anything had changed over the decade+ since the start of the project. Got an email tonight that the Bypass is open and the Bypass is signed, as the uncovered signs suggested, as I-73/I-74. The US 74 Bypass is now signed I-74/US 74.

I have been having computer issues preventing me from updating my I-74/I-74 and Future NC Interstates pages, will hopefully resolve them by tomorrow.

Strider

Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2025, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 29, 2025, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: english si on January 29, 2025, 04:50:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
maybe, but in my head canon here they aren't going to ask permission for this first move and are lumping in the second move with moves of the route elsewhere.

I'd be very surprised if they ask AASHTO to formally move US220 onto the bypass.

That's NCDOT for you. Their decision-making can be bonkers. US-220 is not going to be on a bypass, so somebody in NCDOT made a mistake. I just emailed them about that... we shall see what they said.
I have speculated on the SERoads and Tar Heel Roads FB groups that the Bypass press release was simply a quick edit of one of the early press releases at the start of the US 220 improvement portion of the project in 2014. At that time they had not gotten permission to sign the segment south of Ellerbe as I-73/I-74, that would happen in 2018. They also were proposing US 220 on the Bypass and a Business Loop 73/74 for current US 220, they decided to keep US 220 where it was later. IMO someone at the NCDOT media office didn't think check to see if anything had changed over the decade+ since the start of the project. Got an email tonight that the Bypass is open and the Bypass is signed, as the uncovered signs suggested, as I-73/I-74. The US 74 Bypass is now signed I-74/US 74.

I have been having computer issues preventing me from updating my I-74/I-74 and Future NC Interstates pages, will hopefully resolve them by tomorrow.


He is correct. I did in fact got a response from them (NCDOT) saying that I-73/I-74 is indeed signed along the bypass, and US 220 leaves I-73/I-74 at Exit 22. They did in fact asked me where I found the misinformation....

I will attach their response later today.

Somebody will need to fix the I-73 and I-74 Wiki page.

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: Strider on January 30, 2025, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: bob7374 on January 29, 2025, 10:58:45 PM
Quote from: Strider on January 29, 2025, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: english si on January 29, 2025, 04:50:41 AM
Quote from: vdeane on January 28, 2025, 09:12:32 PM
Quote from: english si on January 28, 2025, 01:53:24 PMI imagine US220 is a placeholder until they can get FHWA sign off on the interstate designations and they didn't want to bother changing the signs after just a couple of months.

Going by I-587, I could imagine a request to AASHTO in the Fall to relocate US220 over US220Bus/Alt now the corridor is completed interstate, and they'd throw in the reversal of the unsubmitted moving of US220 to the bypass in that documentation and that will be the only official reference to the bypass being US220 outside of press releases.
Wouldn't it be simpler to just come up with a temporary state route number or get permission for I-73/I-74 in advance rather than move US 220 twice?
maybe, but in my head canon here they aren't going to ask permission for this first move and are lumping in the second move with moves of the route elsewhere.

I'd be very surprised if they ask AASHTO to formally move US220 onto the bypass.

That's NCDOT for you. Their decision-making can be bonkers. US-220 is not going to be on a bypass, so somebody in NCDOT made a mistake. I just emailed them about that... we shall see what they said.
I have speculated on the SERoads and Tar Heel Roads FB groups that the Bypass press release was simply a quick edit of one of the early press releases at the start of the US 220 improvement portion of the project in 2014. At that time they had not gotten permission to sign the segment south of Ellerbe as I-73/I-74, that would happen in 2018. They also were proposing US 220 on the Bypass and a Business Loop 73/74 for current US 220, they decided to keep US 220 where it was later. IMO someone at the NCDOT media office didn't think check to see if anything had changed over the decade+ since the start of the project. Got an email tonight that the Bypass is open and the Bypass is signed, as the uncovered signs suggested, as I-73/I-74. The US 74 Bypass is now signed I-74/US 74.

I have been having computer issues preventing me from updating my I-74/I-74 and Future NC Interstates pages, will hopefully resolve them by tomorrow.


He is correct. I did in fact got a response from them (NCDOT) saying that I-73/I-74 is indeed signed along the bypass, and US 220 leaves I-73/I-74 at Exit 22. They did in fact asked me where I found the misinformation....

I will attach their response later today.

Somebody will need to fix the I-73 and I-74 Wiki page.

I've been trying to edit the new designations around the Rockingham area on Wiki, but someone has been undoing my edits when I check back to see if my edits stick...  :banghead:
-Jay Seaburg

vdeane

Do we need another round of "let Wikipedia go, the AARW is where it's at"?

At least Google usually includes AARW links for searches on highways now, though we're still getting edged out by the people who think reading a map is original research.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

74/171FAN

I placed hidden text on the I-73 (NC), I-74 (NC), and US 220 pages on the AARoads Wiki that I plan to edit and unhide once Bob Malme's website update is done.
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

Travel Mapping: https://travelmapping.net/user/?units=miles&u=markkos1992
Mob-Rule:  https://mob-rule.com/user/markkos1992

WashuOtaku

Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 30, 2025, 08:57:47 PMI've been trying to edit the new designations around the Rockingham area on Wiki, but someone has been undoing my edits when I check back to see if my edits stick...  :banghead:

That would be me. Please have your sources ready when you attempt to update again.

Molandfreak

Quote from: WashuOtaku on January 31, 2025, 01:26:32 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on January 30, 2025, 08:57:47 PMI've been trying to edit the new designations around the Rockingham area on Wiki, but someone has been undoing my edits when I check back to see if my edits stick...  :banghead:

That would be me. Please have your sources ready when you attempt to update again.
Imagine taking pride in being a buzz killington instead of actually being helpful.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PMAASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Rothman

Imagine editing Wikipedia without cites...
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bob7374

I have done some updating to the I-73 and I-74 Progress Summary pages, the exit lists and the I-73 Segment 12 page, will try to complete it tonight. Meanwhile, NCDOT has posted its latest Week in Review video, part of which is dedicated to the opening of the Rockingham Bypass. Guess what they say the Bypass is designated as:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2025/2025-01-31-this-week-at-ncdot.aspx

Great Lakes Roads

Quote from: bob7374 on January 31, 2025, 03:49:28 PMI have done some updating to the I-73 and I-74 Progress Summary pages, the exit lists and the I-73 Segment 12 page, will try to complete it tonight. Meanwhile, NCDOT has posted its latest Week in Review video, part of which is dedicated to the opening of the Rockingham Bypass. Guess what they say the Bypass is designated as:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2025/2025-01-31-this-week-at-ncdot.aspx

Guess that someone didn't check their sources... SMH
-Jay Seaburg



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.