Print

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

[OracleUsr]

Great read describing a journey on US 64 from one end of the state to the other.  This is the type of highway features/writing I personally enjoy.

https://www.theassemblync.com/place/north-carolina-longest-highway/

My 8th grade social studies class did a paper that was titled Murphy to Manteo, describing the journey of US 64.

[sprjus4]

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

That was 30 years ago. Things change.

Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity.

Agreed, they will probably redesignate it NC-540 to I-540 to provide consistency.

And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.

Why would they change a 30 year old designation by a single number? Besides to appease the roadgeek community who want strict enforcement of merely suggested 3di numbering standards, why would they change it?

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

Some people are in love with suggested 3di numbering conventions so much that they want to change a by-then 50+ year designation from a “5”  to a “6” .

[architect77]

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

That was 30 years ago. Things change.

Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity.

Agreed, they will probably redesignate it NC-540 to I-540 to provide consistency.

And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.

Why would they change a 30 year old designation by a single number? Besides to appease the roadgeek community who want strict enforcement of merely suggested 3di numbering standards, why would they change it?

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

Some people are in love with suggested 3di numbering conventions so much that they want to change a by-then 50+ year designation from a “5”  to a “6” .

It would be an interesting polling to find out how many in the general public across the country (after lifetimes of having only the red, white, and blue interstates with that odd, even 1st number naming convention) identify spurs/linear hwys with odd 1st numbers or loops with even 1st numbers.

It's a convention followed by all interstates in all 50 states. Some of that probably has seeped into people's minds even if they couldn't immediately describe what the even/odd 1st number means.

If you can find other loops with an off 1st number, then maybe you are correct, it's just a number. Otherwise it is important to convey information about an interstate.

Atlanta's northern suburbs have spurs I-575, I-985 and the main loop around Atlanta is I-285.  D.C.'s loop is I-495. Charlotte I-485.

I will bet $1K that Raleigh's completed loop will not keep the "5" 1st number. It will be I-240,640,840, or 440 with the Beltline getting renamed.

[BlueRidge]

Well, it won’t be 240 (Asheville) or 840 (Greensboro). There’s no chance in hell 440 will be renumbered.

Think what you will, but exceptions to the rules do exist - including I-540 in current form.

[bassoon1986]

Right. I don’t see a state DOT wanting to spend to reminder an entire loop just for that reason. Exceptions are definitely out there. Augusta has 520 half loop because it used to be only a spur on the Georgia side.

[wdcrft63]

Yes, it was a mistake to number the first sections of the road 540 instead of 640. Water over the proverbial dam. Current interest in changing the number is confined pretty much to this forum.

[wdcrft63]

There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

There are several examples of partial loops with odd numbers in the first digit, such as I-170 at St. Louis and I-355 at Chicago.

[Mapmikey]

There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.

[wdcrft63]

There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.

I grew up in Richmond and visited relatives there for many years. I do not recall the Downtown Expressway having any number other than 195, and I’m sure I drove it when it was new in the mid 70s. I suppose you could be right about VDOT thinking of moving I-95 but where would that have left the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg?

In any case, I-195 has looped back to I-95 via VA route 195 for 45 years or more so I still see this as analogous to the 540 situation, FWIW.

[sprjus4]

Some more information regarding the I-95 / I-85 / I-295 numbering in Virginia from Roads to the Future listed below.

Virginia got federal approval in the late 1970s to build a new Interstate corridor to parallel the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (RPT). The RPT was designated with I-95 for most of its length, and with I-85 on the southern 4 miles. The RPT was a state-built tollroad, opened in 1958; no federal funds were used. The new Interstate would provide a new I-85 and new I-95, south and east of Petersburg. The RPT would have had the Interstate signing removed, and become a state route. Two sections of federally-funded Interstate leading to the RPT would have been bypassed also; about 3 miles of I-85 west of Petersburg would have become I-385, and about 4 miles of I-95 south of Petersburg would have become I-795. I-295 northeast of Richmond would have become I-95, and I-95 from I-295 (north junction) to I-195 would have become I-195. In other words, what today is the I-295 bypass of I-95, would have been I-95.

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

[Mapmikey]

There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.

I grew up in Richmond and visited relatives there for many years. I do not recall the Downtown Expressway having any number other than 195, and I’m sure I drove it when it was new in the mid 70s. I suppose you could be right about VDOT thinking of moving I-95 but where would that have left the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg?

In any case, I-195 has looped back to I-95 via VA route 195 for 45 years or more so I still see this as analogous to the 540 situation, FWIW.

VA 88 was renumbered to VA 195 in Jan 1976 (before the road was open) and was referred to as VA 88 throughout CTB documents 1972-77.

I have found 1 map that shows it...

1974 AAA

[Henry]

There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

There are several examples of partial loops with odd numbers in the first digit, such as I-170 at St. Louis and I-355 at Chicago.

The other way, there are also spurs with even numbers as a first digit, like I-495 and I-678 in New York. As for I-195, it doesn't bother me that it continues back to I-95 as VA 195. Changing it to something else would only create confusion, so there you have it.

[wdcrft63]

Some more information regarding the I-95 / I-85 / I-295 numbering in Virginia from Roads to the Future listed below.

Virginia got federal approval in the late 1970s to build a new Interstate corridor to parallel the Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike (RPT). The RPT was designated with I-95 for most of its length, and with I-85 on the southern 4 miles. The RPT was a state-built tollroad, opened in 1958; no federal funds were used. The new Interstate would provide a new I-85 and new I-95, south and east of Petersburg. The RPT would have had the Interstate signing removed, and become a state route. Two sections of federally-funded Interstate leading to the RPT would have been bypassed also; about 3 miles of I-85 west of Petersburg would have become I-385, and about 4 miles of I-95 south of Petersburg would have become I-795. I-295 northeast of Richmond would have become I-95, and I-95 from I-295 (north junction) to I-195 would have become I-195. In other words, what today is the I-295 bypass of I-95, would have been I-95.

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html

Thanks for this explanation. As a Tar Heel now for many years my comment is that it’s unfortunate that the southern bypass of Petersburg wasn’t built; it would give us NC folks an easy way to use I-295 to avoid the former RPT.

[OldDominion75]

US 158’s planned relocation onto a new 4-lane divided highway in Northampton County seems to be moving forward. The bridges over US 301 in Garysburg are up and the ramps are almost complete. It looks to be a partial cloverleaf interchange. I wonder what the Roanoke Rapids-Weldon route will become.

[sprjus4]

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx

The ongoing widening is the third segment to an ultimate project to widen US-158 between I-95 and US-13 to 4 lanes. The segment from Murfreesboro to US-13 is already complete, along with the US-13 / US-158 overlap. I’m not sure what the leftover portion will be called once it is re-routed east of I-95.

I’m not sure if long-range plans call for widening US-158 east of there to US-17. I do know a segment that is needed, and seemingly keeps getting delayed, is from Camden to NC-168. An interchange at US-17 / US-158 is also long overdue.

[bob7374]

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx

The ongoing widening is the third segment to an ultimate project to widen US-158 between I-95 and US-13 to 4 lanes. The segment from Murfreesboro to US-13 is already complete, along with the US-13 / US-158 overlap. I’m not sure what the leftover portion will be called once it is re-routed east of I-95.

I’m not sure if long-range plans call for widening US-158 east of there to US-17. I do know a segment that is needed, and seemingly keeps getting delayed, is from Camden to NC-168. An interchange at US-17 / US-158 is also long overdue.

The sign plans for the project are at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Northampton_R2582A_34472.3.2_C204210/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

It appears US 158 will join I-95 between Exits 173 and 176. A Business US 158 will be designated along the old US 158 East route. The new signage for Exit 176 will feature US 158, NC 46 and NC 186 shields.

[sprjus4]

^ Pleasantly surprised to see them post a 60 mph speed limit, especially immediately. It seems  lot of 4-laning in North Carolina lingers at 55 mph in most cases.

[74/171FAN]

It appears US 158 will join I-95 between Exits 173 and 176. A Business US 158 will be designated along the old US 158 East route. The new signage for Exit 176 will feature US 158, NC 46 and NC 186 shields.

If I am reading the plans correctly, it also looks like NC 46 will be truncated on its south end to I-95.

[The Ghostbuster]

Would it be possible to extend this new 4-lane bypass of US 158 west of Interstate 95 to reconnect with existing US 158 west of Belmont and Roanoke Rapids?

[Mapmikey]

Would it be possible to extend this new 4-lane bypass of US 158 west of Interstate 95 to reconnect with existing US 158 west of Belmont and Roanoke Rapids?

Lake Gaston, Roanoke River and the city of Roanoke Rapids make that all but impossible.

You could, though, run a nice 4-lane route from I-95 in the the NC 125 area WNW back to US 158 in an arc or by using some of NC 903's routing.  Unsure why they didn't make a bypass that was south of Weldon unless they thought the cost of a new Roanoke River bridge was prohibitive.

[architect77]

Well, it won’t be 240 (Asheville) or 840 (Greensboro). There’s no chance in hell 440 will be renumbered.

Think what you will, but exceptions to the rules do exist - including I-540 in current form.

I-440 popped up into existence one day when I was a junior or senior at NC State around 1990 or so.

Theoretically It shouldn't be named 440 because it is only a loop when borrowing a section of I-40.

I don't know if the rebuild of the I-40, I-440, US1 interchange will replace the hardcore cloverleaf exit to transition from Westbound 440 to I-40 East with a continuous mainline or flyover.

But my point is if they were being totally faithful to the numbering I-440 could be something else since It's merely a bypass connecting to I-40 at two points.

I don't think I-40 still has the I-440 designation like it used to when they tried the Inner/Outer naming briefly but later abandoning that. I wonder if not being a true continuous loop had anything to do with it other than the supposed difficulty people had understanding that naming convention.

[sprjus4]

Theoretically It shouldn't be named 440 because it is only a loop when borrowing a section of I-40.

But my point is if they were being totally faithful to the numbering I-440 could be something else since It's merely a bypass connecting to I-40 at two points.

I-440 quite literally connects to I-40 on both ends and creates a northern beltway to I-40… what else should it be called (as an interstate)? 

You’ve described the definition of an even digit 3di route.

[Katavia]

This argument is dumb. It was a loop when initially designed. See: I-520.

^ Pleasantly surprised to see them post a 60 mph speed limit, especially immediately. It seems  lot of 4-laning in North Carolina lingers at 55 mph in most cases.

Now only if they'd sign the Broyhill Highway at 60.

[CanesFan27]

The reason for I-540 is

This argument is dumb. It was a loop when initially designed. See: I-520.

Yes and no. The plan was for a full loop. However, only what is basically Free 540 was funded.  An FHWA admin ruled that because 540 was only funded to the Knightdale Bypass to the east and NC 54 (or was it NC 55 it’s been 25 years, sorry) to the West it had to be 540.

The number stuck and as the one poster said NCDOT asked for an exception to keep 540 as is when the Knightdale Bypass became 495 (now 87).  This time the FHWA said “sure, why not”  (a good name for a blog by the way) and it’s pretty much regulated as is.

If NC didn’t pass toll road legislation, we might have 540 to NC 55 or US 64 and that’s it. 

[architect77]

Theoretically It shouldn't be named 440 because it is only a loop when borrowing a section of I-40.

But my point is if they were being totally faithful to the numbering I-440 could be something else since It's merely a bypass connecting to I-40 at two points.

I-440 quite literally connects to I-40 on both ends and creates a northern beltway to I-40… what else should it be called (as an interstate)? 

You’ve described the definition of an even digit 3di route.

Ok. I thought that maybe a real continuous loop might be the ideal use of an even number designation. I'm still hoping one day for I-640 to become a reality since that was the original plan way back in 1992.