Complete NC 540 Project

[goobnav]

Can't wait to see the traffic for this, people here have a hard enough time with roundabouts and they're from the Northeast, SMH

[Roadsguy]

How far along actually is the project? I tried to get the actual construction plans from a public records request after I had heard that construction began, but they weren't ready yet.

[LM117]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

[tolbs17]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

[sprjus4]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

[wdcrft63]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

[sprjus4]

^

Exactly, as long as the number - 540 - is the same throughout, it works.

While the two highways are separate designations officially - northern portion I-540 and southern portion NC-540, the entire loop share one set of mile markers, starting at MM 0 at I-40 on the western side and continuing all the way both I-540 and eventually NC-540 when built around back to MM 69. The existing section of Toll NC-540 reflects this.

[LM117]

Project update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-15-540-construction-continues.aspx

[LM117]

River Falls Drive is scheduled to permanently close on June 22.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-18-river-falls-drive-closure.aspx

[Roadsguy]

I've obtained the construction plans for the three active contracts from NCDOT, and they reveal that the design shown in tolbs17's post from February is in fact the final design:



And for comparison, the preliminary design:


It still features the huge loop flyover hybrid roundabout-like thing, but shifted around, and with a few ramps now being direct. Rather than almost completely retaining the existing US 70 trumpet, the new design completely obliterates it and even feeds the westbound US 70 mainline onto the big loop. (US 70 still has two-lane mainline continuity up to the merge and from the split with I-40 as it does now.)

I only have the signage and striping plans since the roadway plans weren't finished yet, but even the plans I do have aren't actually finalized yet and the details are subject to change. Some highlights:



All three lanes of eastbound NC 540 will be diverted onto the exit, which will ultimately be restriped down to two lanes when the last section of 540 opens. Both directions will be numbered simply Exit 36 with no A/B/C suffixes, I guess since trying to number the mess of exits around the big loop would be a nightmare factoring in US 70's own exit numbering.


(North is to the left here.)

Each of the three lanes from EB 540 will go to its own ramp: one to I-40/US 70 WB, one to US 70 EB, and one to I-40 EB. NC 540 is still being signed as just "Triangle Expwy" with no control cities or indirectly signed routes, matching newer signage elsewhere. Interestingly, rather than changing I-40 Exit 309 into Exits 309A, -B, and -C, the exits for 540 will be numbered separately as 310A-B, with 309 remaining the number for US 70.



This is hard to show with screenshots since the necessary details are spread across several different slices of the plan diagrams, but the ramp from WB 540 to EB 70 (the one connecting from the big flyover loop directly to the US 70 mainline) will be paved, but closed until the last section of 540 opens. While completely useless now, it does seem odd that they're not just opening it right away, since they'll need to sign and stripe it anyway, and will now need to replace signs that they otherwise wouldn't need to.

I also notice that this new design makes it so that both directions of I-40 have one dedicated ramp for each of the three movements to 540 WB, 540 EB, and 70 EB. The big flyover loop is only for movements coming from NC 540 or US 70.

(No mention of future I-42 overlays on any of the signage plans, though this doesn't really matter and would only serve to further clutter the plans.)

The rest of the plans are pretty standard and not particularly noteworthy, aside from the short section of existing 540 between US 1 and NC 55 having its directionality changed from north/south to east/west, which makes sense.

[sprjus4]

^

Much like the I-540 East to I-87 North loop ramp further north, it seems like a mistake to make the I-40 West to NC-540 West ramp only a loop. Both of the aforementioned movements warrant 2-lane flyovers.

[orulz]

The construction on I-40 in the vicinity of this interchange seems to go on forever. This is a beast. So much so that I think we should nickname it "The Beast" or some such.

The infrastructure nerd in me is hugely impressed by the sheer amount of civil works that is involved here, but I can't help but think we'd be so much better off as a society if we put even 1/100 as much effort into our pedestrian and bike infrastructure.

Instead, the legislature plans to zero out state-level bike/ped funding so we can proceed with things like "the beast". Sigh.

[orulz]

There are still some weaves on the flyover roundabout in this design. 70W->540W weaves with both 540W->40E and 540E->40W on the "flyover roundabout". I do not think we should spend the money on this, but building a dedicated connector from 70W->540W would solve both of them.

I also agree that the cloverleaf from 40W->540W is incongruous with the rest of the interchange. Oh well. Again, I think we are already spending way more than enough money on this beast. No need to ratchet up the scope even more.

[Henry]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

Maybe so, but this already violates the numbering convention regarding loops. I-540 may only connect to its parent on the western end, but I feel that they should've gone ahead with the I-640/NC 640 plans.

[sprjus4]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

Maybe so, but this already violates the numbering convention regarding loops. I-540 may only connect to its parent on the western end, but I feel that they should've gone ahead with the I-640/NC 640 plans.

I-540 has already been established for nearly 20 years, and it would only cause more unnecessarily confusion to go and re-number it. It would satisfy a few groups of road geeks, but the majority of people could care less if it's 5 vs. 6.

[Roadsguy]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

Maybe so, but this already violates the numbering convention regarding loops. I-540 may only connect to its parent on the western end, but I feel that they should've gone ahead with the I-640/NC 640 plans.

I-540 has already been established for nearly 20 years, and it would only cause more unnecessarily confusion to go and re-number it. It would satisfy a few groups of road geeks, but the majority of people could care less if it's 5 vs. 6.

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

[wdcrft63]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

Maybe so, but this already violates the numbering convention regarding loops. I-540 may only connect to its parent on the western end, but I feel that they should've gone ahead with the I-640/NC 640 plans.

I-540 has already been established for nearly 20 years, and it would only cause more unnecessarily confusion to go and re-number it. It would satisfy a few groups of road geeks, but the majority of people could care less if it's 5 vs. 6.

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

This is not a new conversation. Here is the account from the Raleigh News and Observer's "Road Worrier" Bruce Siceloff back in December 2013:

DOT favored the name I-640 more than 20 years ago when it was preparing to build the loop around our city, starting at I-40 near Research Triangle Park. But the feds were not persuaded back then that the new freeway would ever extend farther across North Raleigh than U.S. 1. So they called it a spur whose three-digit name must start with an odd number.

Now, as noted in Cottone's comment, it's appropriate to rename the loop I-640. But the state DOT no longer prefers this name. So, as they've done with "connecting interstates"  in Pennsylvania and New York, the feds have agreed to ignore this rule.

When DOT officials requested a waiver from the feds' renaming requirement, they cited "public expectation, historic controversy, and economic burden of sign replacement."  Of course they weren't talking here about road-geek expectation.

Most drivers would find it confusing and wasteful to rename I-540. They would perhaps express their opinions by twerking in the streets, whatever that means.

Read more here: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10288631.html#storylink=cpy

In short: It's the Feds that caused this problem.

[Revive 755]

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

Considering Illinois is getting an electronic toll only I-490, NCDOT should try for the switch at the next meeting.  If AASHTO won't let them make the switch then seek an congressional override.

[sprjus4]

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

Considering Illinois is getting an electronic toll only I-490, NCDOT should try for the switch at the next meeting.  If AASHTO won't let them make the switch then seek an congressional override.

Has to due with funding. If federal funding is used, it cannot be an interstate by current law.

[goobnav]

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

Considering Illinois is getting an electronic toll only I-490, NCDOT should try for the switch at the next meeting.  If AASHTO won't let them make the switch then seek an congressional override.

Has to due with funding. If federal funding is used, it cannot be an interstate by current law.

I trust you meant the opposite, Federal funding prevents tolling, aka Breezewood, PA.  NC Turnpike won't give up the cash and based on the current State Administration, they are going to steal everything they can now before they are gone.

[sprjus4]

^This. It should have been I-640 from the get-go, and I have no clue what NCDOT was thinking when they applied for I-540 since they must have been planning the full beltway, but at this point they need to just leave it 540 and one day convince AASHTO to let them make it all I-540 when/if tolls go away in however many decades.

Considering Illinois is getting an electronic toll only I-490, NCDOT should try for the switch at the next meeting.  If AASHTO won't let them make the switch then seek an congressional override.

Has to due with funding. If federal funding is used, it cannot be an interstate by current law.

I trust you meant the opposite, Federal funding prevents tolling, aka Breezewood, PA.  NC Turnpike won't give up the cash and based on the current State Administration, they are going to steal everything they can now before they are gone.

If the project uses any portion of federal funding, it's ineligible for an interstate designation. VA-895 in Richmond would've been able to become I-895, but since it used around $9 million in federal funding for right of way / engineering, it wasn't eligible.

What you're referencing is with the original interstate system. Federal funding can be used in toll projects, they just cannot carry the blue and red shield.

[hurricanehink]

Can't Congress write I-540 into law for the toll portions to get around the law barring interstates from receiving federal funding?

[bob7374]

NCDOT has issued a press release for closings on I-40 at the US 70 Clayton Bypass for installation of the first girders for the NC 540 bridges over the interstate:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-15-i-40-east-closed-us-70-clayton-bypass-540-girder-installation.aspx

[The Ghostbuster]

Does that mean future NC 540 will soon be built at that location, or anywhere between Exits 26 and 54?

[1995hoo]

Looks like NCDOT/NCTA is applying for a federal INFRA grant to speed up construction. The Clayton Town Council passed a resolution supporting the application and sent it to USDOT.

https://jocoreport.com/clayton-town-council-supports-i-540-funding/

It's also kind of confusing if it would be called NC 540 or I-540. That's a little funny in my opinion. How about signing the whole loop I-540

If they want the construction to be sped up, then that would probably get the last (eastern) section accelerated and they will start construction there also!

Toll roads utilizing federal funding cannot currently be designated as interstate highways. Otherwise, it would be I-540. Until the law changes, that's why.

In Raleigh the road is often called "Toll 540" or just "540." I don't think anyone cares very much whether it is officially NC 540 or I-540.

Maybe so, but this already violates the numbering convention regarding loops. I-540 may only connect to its parent on the western end, but I feel that they should've gone ahead with the I-640/NC 640 plans.

I-540 has already been established for nearly 20 years, and it would only cause more unnecessarily confusion to go and re-number it. It would satisfy a few groups of road geeks, but the majority of people could care less if it's 5 vs. 6.

More than 20 years. The first segment, from I-40 to US-70, opened sometime between August 1995 and May 1998 (that was the period I lived in Durham and it opened sometime during those years). Back then the road wasn't very useful because it didn't really go anywhere, so it didn't get much traffic, which meant it was the place to go if you wanted to try to see how fast your car would go.

Edited to add: Wikipedia lists January 21, 1997, as the opening date for that first short segment. I have no reason to question that date as being accurate.