Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mapmikey]

^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.

Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?

^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.

Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?

^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.

Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?

Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.

[sprjus4]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

[Strider]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

[WashuOtaku]

Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.

You know I have to ask for source now.

[froggie]

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

[sprjus4]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

[Mapmikey]

Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.

You know I have to ask for source now.

See reply 20 here - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31769.msg2753261#msg2753261

[roadman65]

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

Florida has a state law now that interstates can’t be tolled except for both I-75 and I-275. The former is allowed as toll money goes to restoring the environment That Alligator Alley is destroying plus the same grandfathered rules that I-275 has regarding the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.

[Strider]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.

[sprjus4]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.

Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

[rickmastfan67]

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

Florida has a state law now that interstates can’t be tolled except for both I-75 and I-275. The former is allowed as toll money goes to restoring the environment That Alligator Alley is destroying plus the same grandfathered rules that I-275 has regarding the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.

What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?

[NE2]

What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), and not including high occupancy toll lanes or express lanes, no tolls may be charged for use of an interstate highway where tolls were not charged as of July 1, 1997.

[rickmastfan67]

What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), and not including high occupancy toll lanes or express lanes, no tolls may be charged for use of an interstate highway where tolls were not charged as of July 1, 1997.

Ah.

[LM117]

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

Federal funding was definitely involved with NC-540 and NC-885.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_triangle_expressway.aspx

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

[CanesFan27]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.

Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

In fact, that has always been informally mentioned in letters to the editor, etc. to the News & Observer and other media outlet comments over the years.  The number has pretty much set in with local residents.  Some comments were made when 495/87 came along that it should be changed to 640 - but the conventional wisdom is, "Hey, let's just leave it alone."

[LM117]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.

Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

In fact, that has always been informally mentioned in letters to the editor, etc. to the News & Observer and other media outlet comments over the years.  The number has pretty much set in with local residents.  Some comments were made when 495/87 came along that it should be changed to 640 - but the conventional wisdom is, "Hey, let's just leave it alone."

Back when I-495 was approved in 2013, NCDOT even got a waiver from FHWA to keep I-540 as is, citing local familiarity and the cost of changing all the signs.

[sprjus4]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

[Rothman]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

[Dirt Roads]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

I think that this is more of an issue about the [cost of money] than bond ratings.  It looks like the North Carolina Turnpike Authority can still get TIFIA loans under 2%, whereas recent NCTA bonds are grabbing as much as 5% interest (yet still rated as Fitch AA+).  I'm curious as to whether the use of TIFIA loans requires NCTA to adhere to the entirety of FHWA regulations for highway construction.  At some point, there is a crossover for which the additional 20% from the Feds doesn't make sense to take.

[Rothman]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

I think that this is more of an issue about the [cost of money] than bond ratings.  It looks like the North Carolina Turnpike Authority can still get TIFIA loans under 2%, whereas recent NCTA bonds are grabbing as much as 5% interest (yet still rated as Fitch AA+).  I'm curious as to whether the use of TIFIA loans requires NCTA to adhere to the entirety of FHWA regulations for highway construction.  At some point, there is a crossover for which the additional 20% from the Feds doesn't make sense to take.

Interesting.  So, it was because bonding sucked.

I believe that they would have to follow fed-aid requirements, given FHWA's oversight of the funds.

One interesting requirement is that TIFIA and other federal-aid can only constitute 49% of the project's cost, which explains why authorities have been using them for the most part.

One annoying thing I didn't know is that they eat into a State's annual obligation authority (!).  For a state like NY, there had to be coordination with the authorities on their projects, which utilized TIFIA (Moynihan, Goethals Bridge, etc.).

[sprjus4]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.

[Rothman]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.

Not sure what you're asking.  TIFIA would have no bearing on Interstate designation one way or the other.

[sprjus4]

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.

Not sure what you're asking.  TIFIA would have no bearing on Interstate designation one way or the other.

The idea that if federal funding is used on a toll road, then it cannot have an interstate designation, as discussed above.

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

[Thing 342]

I'm not sure where the source for commonly cited rule of initial construction projects for toll highways using federal funds being barred from the Interstate System is in current US Code.

Here's the current language governing use of federal funds for construction of toll roads, per Cornell's site: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/129. I do not see any general prohibition on toll highway projects funded with federal aid becoming part of the Interstate System.

Does anyone know if there is an actual written policy for this?

[architect77]

How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.

At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.

Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

It was originally planned to become I-640 once the loop was complete. I remember the poster they produced back in 1992.

Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity. And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.

Some people are just in love with the 540 designation with doesn't identify with a completed loop.

NC is the state of formerly 4 different US70s in Johnston Cty. (now 3 I think) so who knows what will become of it 30 years from now?