I-95 Widening in North Carolina

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5929779,-78.133325/35.7337554,-78.0119732/@35.6607667,-78.1013866,12.75z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

I don't see this part getting widened in the next 10-20 years or so. It has the least amount of traffic.

[Strider]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

[sprjus4]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

No, he's saying, most likely it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT has already identified a number of improvements on the US-29 bypass that are needed to bring it to interstate standards, in particular that one RI/RO intersection. And we all know VDOT. I-785 is going to end at the state line.

[Strider]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

No, he's saying, most likely it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT has already identified a number of improvements on the US-29 bypass that are needed to bring it to interstate standards, in particular that one RI/RO intersection. And we all know VDOT. I-785 is going to end at the state line.

Many other documents say otherwise. Until I see the proof that says it will end at the state line, it will end east of Danville. End of discussion. (It doesn't matter if you know VDOT or not.)

[sprjus4]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

No, he's saying, most likely it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT has already identified a number of improvements on the US-29 bypass that are needed to bring it to interstate standards, in particular that one RI/RO intersection. And we all know VDOT. I-785 is going to end at the state line.

Many other documents say otherwise. Until I see the proof that says it will end at the state line, it will end east of Danville. End of discussion. (It doesn't matter if you know VDOT or not.)

It may officially be slated to end at US-58 / US-360, yes. But what I'm saying, is when NCDOT finishes upgrading the southern stretch of US-29 towards Greensboro, and is ready to post I-785 shields, they're going to do so up to the state line (the end of their jurisdiction). At that point, it's up to VDOT to finish posting the rest and completing necessary upgrades along the US-29 / US-58 bypass. There's currently no funding in place for such improvements and will likely remain that way even after I-785 is complete in NC. So, therefore, I-785 will likely sit at the state line for a while.

Unless things change, of course and an interchange gets funded along with other improvements, but who knows at this rate.

[Strider]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

No, he's saying, most likely it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT has already identified a number of improvements on the US-29 bypass that are needed to bring it to interstate standards, in particular that one RI/RO intersection. And we all know VDOT. I-785 is going to end at the state line.

Many other documents say otherwise. Until I see the proof that says it will end at the state line, it will end east of Danville. End of discussion. (It doesn't matter if you know VDOT or not.)

It may officially be slated to end at US-58 / US-360, yes. But what I'm saying, is when NCDOT finishes upgrading the southern stretch of US-29 towards Greensboro, and is ready to post I-785 shields, they're going to do so up to the state line (the end of their jurisdiction). At that point, it's up to VDOT to finish posting the rest and completing necessary upgrades along the US-29 / US-58 bypass. There's currently no funding in place for such improvements and will likely remain that way even after I-785 is complete in NC. So, therefore, I-785 will likely sit at the state line for a while.

Unless things change, of course and an interchange gets funded along with other improvements, but who knows at this rate.

This is I-95 Widening discussion. I just said I'm done discussing about non-I-95 related. Move on.

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6019352,-79.1045163,16.79z

Surprised they didn't want to put a half-diamond interchange here.

[froggie]

^ Former location of a full interchange, pre I-74.  FHWA frowns upon partial interchanges and the road is easily-enough accessed via a short hop on I-74.

[LM117]

I-785 goes through Danville, right?

That was the original plan, but in reality it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the VA state line. VDOT has no plans to upgrade the Danville bypass and I seriously doubt they have any intention of doing so.

Right ending point (I-785 will end at US 58), but wrong location. I-785 will end at US 58 and US 360 east of Danville. According to their page in the past (if I can find one), the Danville bypass is already interstate standards with the exception of one right turn, right exit "intersection" just to the east of US 29/US 58/Business 29 interchange. I believe it is Elizabeth St or something like that.

No, he's saying, most likely it'll end at the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT has already identified a number of improvements on the US-29 bypass that are needed to bring it to interstate standards, in particular that one RI/RO intersection. And we all know VDOT. I-785 is going to end at the state line.

Exactly.

[tolbs17]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3767874,-78.5413113,911m/data=!3m1!1e3

Wondering why this interchange needs to be rebuilt again after it was rebuilt in like 2001 or 2002.

[Avalanchez71]

I am wondering why NC goes through all of these expenses in the first place.

[LM117]

NCDOT awarded a contract to widen another stretch of I-95, this time between Exit 71 just south of Dunn and I-40 in Benson. The contract also calls for other improvements along the corridor. Completion is expected by summer 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-07-29-i-95-widening-dunn-area.aspx

[wdcrft63]

NCDOT awarded a contract to widen another stretch of I-95, this time between Exit 71 just south of Dunn and I-40 in Benson. The contract also calls for other improvements along the corridor. Completion is expected by summer 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-07-29-i-95-widening-dunn-area.aspx

And it's a big deal: it will make I-95 eight lanes between Fayetteville and I-40.

[sprjus4]

^ And then another 26 mile portion between I-74 and Fayetteville south of the bypass, as well.

So a total of around 50 miles of 8 lanes by the end of the decade, assuming no more projects (such as the Fayetteville Bypass itself) get funded.

Pretty good, and also pretty sad North Carolina will have these long 8 lane portions and the at least twice to triple as busier portions of I-95 north of Richmond, VA still only will have 6 lanes. It truly shows the difference between VDOT and NCDOT.

[D-Dey65]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3767874,-78.5413113,911m/data=!3m1!1e3

Wondering why this interchange needs to be rebuilt again after it was rebuilt in like 2001 or 2002.

It seems like the only reason they want to rebuild this interchange is so they can add unnecessary roundabouts. I know it's not as cockamamie as the plan they've got for Exit 90, but to me it seems like they're only building it to show European-environmental groups how supposedly "progressive" they are.  Plus the one along the northbound ramps tears up the dog park and has five access points, making it less safe.

^ Former location of a full interchange, pre I-74.  FHWA frowns upon partial interchanges and the road is easily-enough accessed via a short hop on I-74.

Which is a good idea. It's also the reason I'm glad NYSDOT never added a new interchange for Jerusalem Avenue (should be NY 105) along Meadowbrook State Parkway north of Southern State Parkway.

[froggie]

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3767874,-78.5413113,911m/data=!3m1!1e3

Wondering why this interchange needs to be rebuilt again after it was rebuilt in like 2001 or 2002.

It seems like the only reason they want to rebuild this interchange is so they can add unnecessary roundabouts. I know it's not as cockamamie as the plan they've got for Exit 90, but to me it seems like they're only building it to show European-environmental groups how supposedly "progressive" they are.  Plus the one along the northbound ramps tears up the dog park and has five access points, making it less safe.

Given your response, I would presume you are anti-roundabout, despite their well-documented and notable improvements to traffic flow and safety over traditional signals.

There are a couple other things to note in your response.  First, NCDOT owns the land that "dog park" sits on (and most of where the dog park physically is will remain intact in the current plan).  Second, by using a roundabout at the northbound ramps, they can reconfigure the interchange into a traditional diamond instead of having an off-ramp loop, which WILL make things safer.

[epzik8]

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5929779,-78.133325/35.7337554,-78.0119732/@35.6607667,-78.1013866,12.75z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

I don't see this part getting widened in the next 10-20 years or so. It has the least amount of traffic.

It gets exciting at Kenly.

[roadman65]

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5929779,-78.133325/35.7337554,-78.0119732/@35.6607667,-78.1013866,12.75z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0

I don't see this part getting widened in the next 10-20 years or so. It has the least amount of traffic.

It gets exciting at Kenly.

There are no exits for several miles here.  Unlike south of Kenly which has pretty much an interchange every 2 miles.  The difference is the location of the freeway to US 301 and the time built. The part from Eastover to Kenly was built early on in the game and from Kenly to Gold Rock was built in the late seventies. Plus the latter is several miles from US 301 keeping the need for local traffic to a minimum.

[D-Dey65]

Given your response, I would presume you are anti-roundabout, despite their well-documented and notable improvements to traffic flow and safety over traditional signals.

I'm actually fine with them if they're done right. They can't be everywhere though. Also if they were always as safe as advocates for them claimed they are, the Hawthorne Circle would still exist between the Saw Mill River and Taconic State Parkways.

There are a couple other things to note in your response.  First, NCDOT owns the land that "dog park" sits on (and most of where the dog park physically is will remain intact in the current plan).  Second, by using a roundabout at the northbound ramps, they can reconfigure the interchange into a traditional diamond instead of having an off-ramp loop, which WILL make things safer.

They've got the northbound off-ramp and the intersection with South Walton Drive too close to one another. You can't convince me that's safer.

[froggie]

In a low speed roundabout situation where you have fewer conflict points anyway, yes it would be safer.

Given your response, I would presume you are anti-roundabout, despite their well-documented and notable improvements to traffic flow and safety over traditional signals.

I'm actually fine with them if they're done right. They can't be everywhere though. Also if they were always as safe as advocates for them claimed they are, the Hawthorne Circle would still exist between the Saw Mill River and Taconic State Parkways.

That was not a roundabout...that was a traffic circle.  BIG difference between traffic circles and roundabouts, notably that traffic circles have wider radii which encourages higher speeds, and don't always have clear lane delineation.  Nevermind that the Saw Mill and the Taconic are, for all intents, freeways and have been for several decades.

There are a couple other things to note in your response.  First, NCDOT owns the land that "dog park" sits on (and most of where the dog park physically is will remain intact in the current plan).  Second, by using a roundabout at the northbound ramps, they can reconfigure the interchange into a traditional diamond instead of having an off-ramp loop, which WILL make things safer.

They've got the northbound off-ramp and the intersection with South Walton Drive too close to one another. You can't convince me that's safer.

Looks like normal roundabout ramp spacing to me.  Plus, given both the lower-speed roundabout scenario and fewer conflict points than a traditional intersection, yes that will be safer.

[D-Dey65]

I just re-examined the plan, and I'm finding this harder to believe than earlier:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Documents/preliminary-design-section-b-map-15.pdf

[jeffandnicole]

I just re-examined the plan, and I'm finding this harder to believe than earlier:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Documents/preliminary-design-section-b-map-15.pdf

Still not seeing the issue here. Looks like a decent roundabout considering the other infrastructure in the area.

Also, taking a single example of a circle removal doesn't mean that the design option is no good anywhere ever.

[Mapmikey]

They must not be expecting much traffic growth on NC 50 anytime soon since they aren't building a wider bridge (this will be the 3rd overpass here).

Note this will be the 3rd different interchange configuration here.  Neither current off-ramp is original, as the NB ramp connected to NC 242 and the SB ramp became Church St.

[D-Dey65]

I just re-examined the plan, and I'm finding this harder to believe than earlier:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Documents/preliminary-design-section-b-map-15.pdf

Still not seeing the issue here. Looks like a decent roundabout considering the other infrastructure in the area.

Also, taking a single example of a circle removal doesn't mean that the design option is no good anywhere ever.

You don't see how two of the roads are planned to be pushed close to one another? I should point out the five different entry and exit points, but the Newtown Grove Roundabout has six, and that works. 

Note this will be the 3rd different interchange configuration here.  Neither current off-ramp is original, as the NB ramp connected to NC 242 and the SB ramp became Church St.

And you really don't need to go to Historic Aerials to figure that out either, because you can still see the scars of the old northbound off-ramp.

[architect77]

I just re-examined the plan, and I'm finding this harder to believe than earlier:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Documents/preliminary-design-section-b-map-15.pdf

So could you guys explain why a SPUI wouldn't be easier and simpler here?

Having two roundabouts sorta repeats the problem of older interchanges that have two sets of signials on each side of the mainline interstate.