North Carolina

[Crown Victoria]

It's conventional wisdom on the Forum that NCDOT wants to convert everything to interstates. No, they don't. The new interstates in NC are all due to political pressure, not because NCDOT was hot to take on the additional trouble and expense of interstate upgrades. Don't assume that everything that could be an interstate is certain to become an interstate. Case by case it depends on the politics.

^ NCDOT has interest in upgrading various corridors to freeway standards, but the interstate designation is purely political.

US-17, US-421 / NC-87, and US-74 are logical freeway upgrades, nonetheless.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Except that it doesn't continue SE on NC 87 to Fayetteville and on toward Wilmington; it turns east to hit I-95 near Dunn.  I fully agree with sprjus4 that its prioritization is a bit misguided (again, it's likely local/intrastate politics is the culprit here) given its functional duplication of I-40 -- is the traffic past Durham and around the Raleigh belt that bad? (and that's a real rather than rhetorical question!).  But, according to the language in the bill, it is a designated Interstate corridor, albeit with no number attached at present, so someone wants it to exist as such.  My guess if and when further action occurs here:  it'll be either I-36 or I-38.     

Its origins are local. Info gathered from my 'Future Future NC Interstate' site: This started out as a proposal by local developer, Jed McMillan who proposed an upgraded US 421 between Greensboro and Fayetteville in 2017 to connect 4 potential commercial 'megasites': the Aerospace Center at the PTI Airport in Greensboro, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City, and the Moncure Megasite on US 1 in Chatham County. He made a presentation to the NCDOT Board on August 3 which then took no action. Apparently this changed sometime in 2019 because on September 25 of that year the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) approved a resolution in support of giving US 421 interstate designation and bringing it up to interstate standards. The resolution notes that US 421 connects I-95 with I-40 and would provide a "valuable alternate route for military and freight traffic"  as well as "additional evacuation routes and relief and recovery routes to the region."  The resolution also noted that the NCDOT Board of Transportation had already passed its own resolution in support of upgrading US 421 between I-40 and I-95 to an interstate. It was reported at the time that all other MPOs along the corridor will have to pass similar resolutions before any proposed designation can move forward. Now perhaps not.

So it's not so much a relief route for I-40 as a "connect-the-dots" corridor serving several sizeable industrial-park sites -- ostensibly with a substantial amount of local bucks dependent upon attracting large-scale occupants/tenants, possibly including warehousing and distribution facilities.  That would account for the push for I-status for the corridor, since access to Interstates is well up on most check lists.  This essentially is I-87/587 rationale but a bit further west; at about 90 miles, it's similar in length to the US 64 portion of I-87.  Still think NCDOT will try for a 2di on this one, having found success at getting the about 120-mile I-42 on the books.

Part of this corridor could be, in theory, an extension of I-42. Extend that route west along NC 540, then south along US 1 to Sanford, then along US 421 to Greensboro. The Sanford to Dunn and Sanford to Fayetteville routes become x42s. This also allows for I-42 to then extend further west, to I-77 or perhaps even to Boone... (Probably bordering on Fictional here, but this is North Carolina, anything can happen when Interstates are involved!)

More likely though, we will witness the birth of yet another new 2di in NC, as stated above by others.

Nah. I-42 is not going any farther west of I-40. And "this is NC thing with interstates" thing is just pure false.

Is it, though? There's not too many other states that are designating new interstate corridors like NC. Maybe it's the politicians and business interests from/in NC and not NCDOT, but it's still a thing for them.

As for my prediction of a future 2di along US 74 between Columbus and Rockingham...maybe it's not officially proposed yet. I myself stated that it's fictional at present. It's a logical corridor for an Interstate designation; a large portion of the route is already freeway, the Shelby bypass is under construction, and there is talk of upgrades east of Monroe toward Wadesboro. There's even a news article from just a few months ago speculating about Interstate status for US 74: https://ansonrecord.com/news/11143/wadesboro-bypass-is-coming-no-stopping-it-city-manager-says  The politicians will catch on soon enough with a designation here.

And of course we can't always assume that anything that could become an Interstate will become one...but given the history of such efforts in North Carolina over the past two decades, it's reasonable to believe that there will be a push for such designations on corridors currently lacking Interstate status in the future. Remember, businesses like those Interstate shields...

Texas says hey.

Also, even if Wadesboro bypass is proposed, it will be an interstate-grade road and not I-xx. The article never mentioned anything about adding an I-xx number. Just an interstate-grade road. And it is proposed to be named U.S. 74 Bypass.

Like I said, not too many other states. Texas is probably the only other one comparable to North Carolina at the moment.

Also I was pretty clear that there's no Interstate number proposed at the moment, and that I was waxing fictional so far as that's concerned. And no, the article doesn't mention a number. It does say "The state's hope is to bring Highway 74 into interstate status." This implies that there is a future possibility for an Interstate corridor here, otherwise "freeway" would suffice. I've looked, and can't find much else to support the statement I quoted from the article, but also like I've said, it's an eventual possibility, especially if interests in Charlotte and Wilmington get on board with such an idea.

[Strider]

It's conventional wisdom on the Forum that NCDOT wants to convert everything to interstates. No, they don't. The new interstates in NC are all due to political pressure, not because NCDOT was hot to take on the additional trouble and expense of interstate upgrades. Don't assume that everything that could be an interstate is certain to become an interstate. Case by case it depends on the politics.

^ NCDOT has interest in upgrading various corridors to freeway standards, but the interstate designation is purely political.

US-17, US-421 / NC-87, and US-74 are logical freeway upgrades, nonetheless.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Except that it doesn't continue SE on NC 87 to Fayetteville and on toward Wilmington; it turns east to hit I-95 near Dunn.  I fully agree with sprjus4 that its prioritization is a bit misguided (again, it's likely local/intrastate politics is the culprit here) given its functional duplication of I-40 -- is the traffic past Durham and around the Raleigh belt that bad? (and that's a real rather than rhetorical question!).  But, according to the language in the bill, it is a designated Interstate corridor, albeit with no number attached at present, so someone wants it to exist as such.  My guess if and when further action occurs here:  it'll be either I-36 or I-38.     

Its origins are local. Info gathered from my 'Future Future NC Interstate' site: This started out as a proposal by local developer, Jed McMillan who proposed an upgraded US 421 between Greensboro and Fayetteville in 2017 to connect 4 potential commercial 'megasites': the Aerospace Center at the PTI Airport in Greensboro, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City, and the Moncure Megasite on US 1 in Chatham County. He made a presentation to the NCDOT Board on August 3 which then took no action. Apparently this changed sometime in 2019 because on September 25 of that year the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) approved a resolution in support of giving US 421 interstate designation and bringing it up to interstate standards. The resolution notes that US 421 connects I-95 with I-40 and would provide a "valuable alternate route for military and freight traffic"  as well as "additional evacuation routes and relief and recovery routes to the region."  The resolution also noted that the NCDOT Board of Transportation had already passed its own resolution in support of upgrading US 421 between I-40 and I-95 to an interstate. It was reported at the time that all other MPOs along the corridor will have to pass similar resolutions before any proposed designation can move forward. Now perhaps not.

So it's not so much a relief route for I-40 as a "connect-the-dots" corridor serving several sizeable industrial-park sites -- ostensibly with a substantial amount of local bucks dependent upon attracting large-scale occupants/tenants, possibly including warehousing and distribution facilities.  That would account for the push for I-status for the corridor, since access to Interstates is well up on most check lists.  This essentially is I-87/587 rationale but a bit further west; at about 90 miles, it's similar in length to the US 64 portion of I-87.  Still think NCDOT will try for a 2di on this one, having found success at getting the about 120-mile I-42 on the books.

Part of this corridor could be, in theory, an extension of I-42. Extend that route west along NC 540, then south along US 1 to Sanford, then along US 421 to Greensboro. The Sanford to Dunn and Sanford to Fayetteville routes become x42s. This also allows for I-42 to then extend further west, to I-77 or perhaps even to Boone... (Probably bordering on Fictional here, but this is North Carolina, anything can happen when Interstates are involved!)

More likely though, we will witness the birth of yet another new 2di in NC, as stated above by others.

Nah. I-42 is not going any farther west of I-40. And "this is NC thing with interstates" thing is just pure false.

Is it, though? There's not too many other states that are designating new interstate corridors like NC. Maybe it's the politicians and business interests from/in NC and not NCDOT, but it's still a thing for them.

As for my prediction of a future 2di along US 74 between Columbus and Rockingham...maybe it's not officially proposed yet. I myself stated that it's fictional at present. It's a logical corridor for an Interstate designation; a large portion of the route is already freeway, the Shelby bypass is under construction, and there is talk of upgrades east of Monroe toward Wadesboro. There's even a news article from just a few months ago speculating about Interstate status for US 74: https://ansonrecord.com/news/11143/wadesboro-bypass-is-coming-no-stopping-it-city-manager-says  The politicians will catch on soon enough with a designation here.

And of course we can't always assume that anything that could become an Interstate will become one...but given the history of such efforts in North Carolina over the past two decades, it's reasonable to believe that there will be a push for such designations on corridors currently lacking Interstate status in the future. Remember, businesses like those Interstate shields...

Texas says hey.

Also, even if Wadesboro bypass is proposed, it will be an interstate-grade road and not I-xx. The article never mentioned anything about adding an I-xx number. Just an interstate-grade road. And it is proposed to be named U.S. 74 Bypass.

Like I said, not too many other states. Texas is probably the only other one comparable to North Carolina at the moment.

Also I was pretty clear that there's no Interstate number proposed at the moment, and that I was waxing fictional so far as that's concerned. And no, the article doesn't mention a number. It does say "The state's hope is to bring Highway 74 into interstate status." This implies that there is a future possibility for an Interstate corridor here, otherwise "freeway" would suffice. I've looked, and can't find much else to support the statement I quoted from the article, but also like I've said, it's an eventual possibility, especially if interests in Charlotte get on board with such an idea.

Again, the interstate number for that part of corridor isn't going to happen.

[sparker]

It's conventional wisdom on the Forum that NCDOT wants to convert everything to interstates. No, they don't. The new interstates in NC are all due to political pressure, not because NCDOT was hot to take on the additional trouble and expense of interstate upgrades. Don't assume that everything that could be an interstate is certain to become an interstate. Case by case it depends on the politics.

^ NCDOT has interest in upgrading various corridors to freeway standards, but the interstate designation is purely political.

US-17, US-421 / NC-87, and US-74 are logical freeway upgrades, nonetheless.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Except that it doesn't continue SE on NC 87 to Fayetteville and on toward Wilmington; it turns east to hit I-95 near Dunn.  I fully agree with sprjus4 that its prioritization is a bit misguided (again, it's likely local/intrastate politics is the culprit here) given its functional duplication of I-40 -- is the traffic past Durham and around the Raleigh belt that bad? (and that's a real rather than rhetorical question!).  But, according to the language in the bill, it is a designated Interstate corridor, albeit with no number attached at present, so someone wants it to exist as such.  My guess if and when further action occurs here:  it'll be either I-36 or I-38.     

Its origins are local. Info gathered from my 'Future Future NC Interstate' site: This started out as a proposal by local developer, Jed McMillan who proposed an upgraded US 421 between Greensboro and Fayetteville in 2017 to connect 4 potential commercial 'megasites': the Aerospace Center at the PTI Airport in Greensboro, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City, and the Moncure Megasite on US 1 in Chatham County. He made a presentation to the NCDOT Board on August 3 which then took no action. Apparently this changed sometime in 2019 because on September 25 of that year the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) approved a resolution in support of giving US 421 interstate designation and bringing it up to interstate standards. The resolution notes that US 421 connects I-95 with I-40 and would provide a "valuable alternate route for military and freight traffic"  as well as "additional evacuation routes and relief and recovery routes to the region."  The resolution also noted that the NCDOT Board of Transportation had already passed its own resolution in support of upgrading US 421 between I-40 and I-95 to an interstate. It was reported at the time that all other MPOs along the corridor will have to pass similar resolutions before any proposed designation can move forward. Now perhaps not.

So it's not so much a relief route for I-40 as a "connect-the-dots" corridor serving several sizeable industrial-park sites -- ostensibly with a substantial amount of local bucks dependent upon attracting large-scale occupants/tenants, possibly including warehousing and distribution facilities.  That would account for the push for I-status for the corridor, since access to Interstates is well up on most check lists.  This essentially is I-87/587 rationale but a bit further west; at about 90 miles, it's similar in length to the US 64 portion of I-87.  Still think NCDOT will try for a 2di on this one, having found success at getting the about 120-mile I-42 on the books.

Part of this corridor could be, in theory, an extension of I-42. Extend that route west along NC 540, then south along US 1 to Sanford, then along US 421 to Greensboro. The Sanford to Dunn and Sanford to Fayetteville routes become x42s. This also allows for I-42 to then extend further west, to I-77 or perhaps even to Boone... (Probably bordering on Fictional here, but this is North Carolina, anything can happen when Interstates are involved!)

More likely though, we will witness the birth of yet another new 2di in NC, as stated above by others.

Nah. I-42 is not going any farther west of I-40. And "this is NC thing with interstates" thing is just pure false.

Is it, though? There's not too many other states that are designating new interstate corridors like NC. Maybe it's the politicians and business interests from/in NC and not NCDOT, but it's still a thing for them.

As for my prediction of a future 2di along US 74 between Columbus and Rockingham...maybe it's not officially proposed yet. I myself stated that it's fictional at present. It's a logical corridor for an Interstate designation; a large portion of the route is already freeway, the Shelby bypass is under construction, and there is talk of upgrades east of Monroe toward Wadesboro. There's even a news article from just a few months ago speculating about Interstate status for US 74: https://ansonrecord.com/news/11143/wadesboro-bypass-is-coming-no-stopping-it-city-manager-says  The politicians will catch on soon enough with a designation here.

And of course we can't always assume that anything that could become an Interstate will become one...but given the history of such efforts in North Carolina over the past two decades, it's reasonable to believe that there will be a push for such designations on corridors currently lacking Interstate status in the future. Remember, businesses like those Interstate shields...

Texas says hey.

Also, even if Wadesboro bypass is proposed, it will be an interstate-grade road and not I-xx. The article never mentioned anything about adding an I-xx number. Just an interstate-grade road. And it is proposed to be named U.S. 74 Bypass.

Like I said, not too many other states. Texas is probably the only other one comparable to North Carolina at the moment.

Also I was pretty clear that there's no Interstate number proposed at the moment, and that I was waxing fictional so far as that's concerned. And no, the article doesn't mention a number. It does say "The state's hope is to bring Highway 74 into interstate status." This implies that there is a future possibility for an Interstate corridor here, otherwise "freeway" would suffice. I've looked, and can't find much else to support the statement I quoted from the article, but also like I've said, it's an eventual possibility, especially if interests in Charlotte get on board with such an idea.

Again, the interstate number for that part of corridor isn't going to happen.

Of course it won't happen -- as long as the corridor is improved in piecemeal fashion.  Monroe's been bypassed, Wadesboro's been proposed (or at least suggested) -- but putting it all together into a cohesive unit just hasn't happened.  And given the exceptionally slow pace at which the Shelby bypass is being constructed farther west, it's clear while there's some long-range speculation, there's nothing currently in place that would place US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 anywhere near "future Interstate" status.  That being said -- if a continuous freeway from I-26 to I-85 finally becomes reality, and plans to directly link I-485 with the Monroe bypass emerge, then, this being NC, rumblings might well become loud enough that some enterprising politico "looks into it" and initiates formulation of that cohesive plan not present today.  And then -- and only then -- we'll see if the other vested parties climb on board.

As far as the I-685 designation for Greensboro-Dunn is concerned -- not knowing much about the "Carolina Core" PR group, had no idea they'd already selected a designation (why it wasn't attached to the legislation is a mystery -- unless they just don't know that could and has been done); at about 90 miles, I suppose it could have gone either way re 2di vs. 3di -- but the former would require a bit of imagination; not necessarily the strong suit of promoters!  Oh well -- if NC doesn't jump on the available pool of even "30's", then eventually Texas will! 

[LM117]

I've gotten an email from the USRNC contact, and they said that they are in the process of adding the 2016-present USRNC decisions onto the big database sometime later this month.

CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link works.

Thought I'd put this here since it contains changes related to NC.

[Strider]

It's conventional wisdom on the Forum that NCDOT wants to convert everything to interstates. No, they don't. The new interstates in NC are all due to political pressure, not because NCDOT was hot to take on the additional trouble and expense of interstate upgrades. Don't assume that everything that could be an interstate is certain to become an interstate. Case by case it depends on the politics.

^ NCDOT has interest in upgrading various corridors to freeway standards, but the interstate designation is purely political.

US-17, US-421 / NC-87, and US-74 are logical freeway upgrades, nonetheless.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Except that it doesn't continue SE on NC 87 to Fayetteville and on toward Wilmington; it turns east to hit I-95 near Dunn.  I fully agree with sprjus4 that its prioritization is a bit misguided (again, it's likely local/intrastate politics is the culprit here) given its functional duplication of I-40 -- is the traffic past Durham and around the Raleigh belt that bad? (and that's a real rather than rhetorical question!).  But, according to the language in the bill, it is a designated Interstate corridor, albeit with no number attached at present, so someone wants it to exist as such.  My guess if and when further action occurs here:  it'll be either I-36 or I-38.     

Its origins are local. Info gathered from my 'Future Future NC Interstate' site: This started out as a proposal by local developer, Jed McMillan who proposed an upgraded US 421 between Greensboro and Fayetteville in 2017 to connect 4 potential commercial 'megasites': the Aerospace Center at the PTI Airport in Greensboro, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City, and the Moncure Megasite on US 1 in Chatham County. He made a presentation to the NCDOT Board on August 3 which then took no action. Apparently this changed sometime in 2019 because on September 25 of that year the Greensboro Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (GUAMPO) approved a resolution in support of giving US 421 interstate designation and bringing it up to interstate standards. The resolution notes that US 421 connects I-95 with I-40 and would provide a "valuable alternate route for military and freight traffic"  as well as "additional evacuation routes and relief and recovery routes to the region."  The resolution also noted that the NCDOT Board of Transportation had already passed its own resolution in support of upgrading US 421 between I-40 and I-95 to an interstate. It was reported at the time that all other MPOs along the corridor will have to pass similar resolutions before any proposed designation can move forward. Now perhaps not.

So it's not so much a relief route for I-40 as a "connect-the-dots" corridor serving several sizeable industrial-park sites -- ostensibly with a substantial amount of local bucks dependent upon attracting large-scale occupants/tenants, possibly including warehousing and distribution facilities.  That would account for the push for I-status for the corridor, since access to Interstates is well up on most check lists.  This essentially is I-87/587 rationale but a bit further west; at about 90 miles, it's similar in length to the US 64 portion of I-87.  Still think NCDOT will try for a 2di on this one, having found success at getting the about 120-mile I-42 on the books.

Part of this corridor could be, in theory, an extension of I-42. Extend that route west along NC 540, then south along US 1 to Sanford, then along US 421 to Greensboro. The Sanford to Dunn and Sanford to Fayetteville routes become x42s. This also allows for I-42 to then extend further west, to I-77 or perhaps even to Boone... (Probably bordering on Fictional here, but this is North Carolina, anything can happen when Interstates are involved!)

More likely though, we will witness the birth of yet another new 2di in NC, as stated above by others.

Nah. I-42 is not going any farther west of I-40. And "this is NC thing with interstates" thing is just pure false.

Is it, though? There's not too many other states that are designating new interstate corridors like NC. Maybe it's the politicians and business interests from/in NC and not NCDOT, but it's still a thing for them.

As for my prediction of a future 2di along US 74 between Columbus and Rockingham...maybe it's not officially proposed yet. I myself stated that it's fictional at present. It's a logical corridor for an Interstate designation; a large portion of the route is already freeway, the Shelby bypass is under construction, and there is talk of upgrades east of Monroe toward Wadesboro. There's even a news article from just a few months ago speculating about Interstate status for US 74: https://ansonrecord.com/news/11143/wadesboro-bypass-is-coming-no-stopping-it-city-manager-says  The politicians will catch on soon enough with a designation here.

And of course we can't always assume that anything that could become an Interstate will become one...but given the history of such efforts in North Carolina over the past two decades, it's reasonable to believe that there will be a push for such designations on corridors currently lacking Interstate status in the future. Remember, businesses like those Interstate shields...

Texas says hey.

Also, even if Wadesboro bypass is proposed, it will be an interstate-grade road and not I-xx. The article never mentioned anything about adding an I-xx number. Just an interstate-grade road. And it is proposed to be named U.S. 74 Bypass.

Like I said, not too many other states. Texas is probably the only other one comparable to North Carolina at the moment.

Also I was pretty clear that there's no Interstate number proposed at the moment, and that I was waxing fictional so far as that's concerned. And no, the article doesn't mention a number. It does say "The state's hope is to bring Highway 74 into interstate status." This implies that there is a future possibility for an Interstate corridor here, otherwise "freeway" would suffice. I've looked, and can't find much else to support the statement I quoted from the article, but also like I've said, it's an eventual possibility, especially if interests in Charlotte get on board with such an idea.

Again, the interstate number for that part of corridor isn't going to happen.

Of course it won't happen -- as long as the corridor is improved in piecemeal fashion.  Monroe's been bypassed, Wadesboro's been proposed (or at least suggested) -- but putting it all together into a cohesive unit just hasn't happened.  And given the exceptionally slow pace at which the Shelby bypass is being constructed farther west, it's clear while there's some long-range speculation, there's nothing currently in place that would place US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 anywhere near "future Interstate" status.  That being said -- if a continuous freeway from I-26 to I-85 finally becomes reality, and plans to directly link I-485 with the Monroe bypass emerge, then, this being NC, rumblings might well become loud enough that some enterprising politico "looks into it" and initiates formulation of that cohesive plan not present today.  And then -- and only then -- we'll see if the other vested parties climb on board.

As far as the I-685 designation for Greensboro-Dunn is concerned -- not knowing much about the "Carolina Core" PR group, had no idea they'd already selected a designation (why it wasn't attached to the legislation is a mystery -- unless they just don't know that could and has been done); at about 90 miles, I suppose it could have gone either way re 2di vs. 3di -- but the former would require a bit of imagination; not necessarily the strong suit of promoters!  Oh well -- if NC doesn't jump on the available pool of even "30's", then eventually Texas will!

That's fine. Texas can have the 30s. There is already an I-30 over there.

Shelby bypass and the U.S. 74 corridor section from I-26 to I-85 have been long proposed as an interstate spur and has been for a while. (the interstate number is still not known) That is a different side of story. Also, there is a Toll road in Monroe Expressway which is labeled as "U.S. 74 BYPASS". NC Turnpike Authority does not want to put interstate designs on any toll roads unless they are paid off.

The I-685 is their proposed number. It is not attached to the legislation because the remaining MPOs along the corridor (Sanford, Siler City, etc.) have not voted on the proposal. Once they do and if they all say "yes", then it will be put in the legislation.

[LM117]

Regarding the I-440 widening project, access to Capital Center Drive from Jones Franklin Road will close beginning Monday due to the construction of a new exit ramp from I-440 East to Jones Franklin Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-10-capital-center-dr-closure.aspx

[sparker]

The I-685 is their proposed number. It is not attached to the legislation because the remaining MPOs along the corridor (Sanford, Siler City, etc.) have not voted on the proposal. Once they do and if they all say "yes", then it will be put in the legislation.

Easier said than done.  All that MPO concurrence would have to be accomplished within the few weeks that this bill has to get full Senate approval, and then go back to the House for a vote on what came over from the Senate.   Since the basic designation as an Interstate corridor is, pending full approval , a fait accompli, the inclusion of a numerical designation in this bit of legislation might not be able to be slid into the final package given the limited time to do so -- unless the MPO's can expedite matters in short order.  Otherwise, it'll likely be delayed until at least the next round of USDOT funding (an alternate designation path utilized before), or some other NC congressional matter where it'd be attached as a rider.  If Carolina Core's plans included the specific I-685 designation, it would have been much simpler to simply attach it per se to the initial HPC #92 designation; the MPO approval (or lack thereof) would affect the corridor designation itself and not just the prescribed number.  But I suppose there was some level of NCDOT support for I-685, as it's the only x85 "loop" designation not assigned within the state.

[Strider]

The I-685 is their proposed number. It is not attached to the legislation because the remaining MPOs along the corridor (Sanford, Siler City, etc.) have not voted on the proposal. Once they do and if they all say "yes", then it will be put in the legislation.

Easier said than done.  All that MPO concurrence would have to be accomplished within the few weeks that this bill has to get full Senate approval, and then go back to the House for a vote on what came over from the Senate.   Since the basic designation as an Interstate corridor is, pending full approval , a fait accompli, the inclusion of a numerical designation in this bit of legislation might not be able to be slid into the final package given the limited time to do so -- unless the MPO's can expedite matters in short order.  Otherwise, it'll likely be delayed until at least the next round of USDOT funding (an alternate designation path utilized before), or some other NC congressional matter where it'd be attached as a rider.  If Carolina Core's plans included the specific I-685 designation, it would have been much simpler to simply attach it per se to the initial HPC #92 designation; the MPO approval (or lack thereof) would affect the corridor designation itself and not just the prescribed number.  But I suppose there was some level of NCDOT support for I-685, as it's the only x85 "loop" designation not assigned within the state.

Not sure why you had to expand on all of that. You asked why it wasn't put in legislation and I provided a response of why which answered your mystery question. That was all I know of so far. I live right on the path of the corridor so I will hear more about it in the future. When I do, I will post updates here. 

[cowboy_wilhelm]

The Speaker of the frickin' House is from Cleveland County, and look how long it's taking the Shelby bypass to be constructed. I don't know how much more political pull you need, but he's clearly not enough. Although he is from Kings Mountain, so I guess he doesn't care since Shelby isn't between him and Raleigh. Shelby would have been bypassed 20 years ago if it was between Raleigh and the beach.

Interstate status for U.S. 74 west of Charlotte has been nothing more than a bullet point in some long-range plans. Nothing is funded or has made it into the STIP. I wouldn't count on it happening this decade, if ever. And honestly, who cares? In a few more years it will be completely divided with full control of access and a speed limit of 65-70 mph. Take the hundred million+ dollars to add shoulders you can't drive on and build a project that's beneficial.

[bob7374]

Looks like the reconfigured routing of US 70 through Greensboro is one step closer to being signed. NCDOT on August 4 approved the ordinance changing the routing to that approved by AASHTO in the fall of 2019. Link to the ordinance, on p. 13 (copy of the AASHTO application is appended to the end of the document): https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2021/2021_08_04.pdf

[wdcrft63]

Looks like the reconfigured routing of US 70 through Greensboro is one step closer to being signed. NCDOT on August 4 approved the ordinance changing the routing to that approved by AASHTO in the fall of 2019. Link to the ordinance, on p. 13 (copy of the AASHTO application is appended to the end of the document): https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2021/2021_08_04.pdf

That's good news. The Death Valley section of I-40 in Greensboro has been carrying five numbers (I-40, I-85 Business, US 29, US 70, and US 220). Moving US 70 and decommissioning I-85 Business gets us 2/3 of the way to straightening out this mess. I'd like to move US 220 also, but it's not clear how to do that.

[Dirt Roads]

Looks like the reconfigured routing of US 70 through Greensboro is one step closer to being signed. NCDOT on August 4 approved the ordinance changing the routing to that approved by AASHTO in the fall of 2019. Link to the ordinance, on p. 13 (copy of the AASHTO application is appended to the end of the document): https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2021/2021_08_04.pdf

That's good news. The Death Valley section of I-40 in Greensboro has been carrying five numbers (I-40, I-85 Business, US 29, US 70, and US 220). Moving US 70 and decommissioning I-85 Business gets us 2/3 of the way to straightening out this mess. I'd like to move US 220 also, but it's not clear how to do that.

US-220 is getting pretty close to being obsoleted by I-73//I-73/I-74 south of Greensboro.  As soon as Rockingham is bypassed, it should be decommissioned then.

[Strider]

Looks like the reconfigured routing of US 70 through Greensboro is one step closer to being signed. NCDOT on August 4 approved the ordinance changing the routing to that approved by AASHTO in the fall of 2019. Link to the ordinance, on p. 13 (copy of the AASHTO application is appended to the end of the document): https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2021/2021_08_04.pdf

That's good news. The Death Valley section of I-40 in Greensboro has been carrying five numbers (I-40, I-85 Business, US 29, US 70, and US 220). Moving US 70 and decommissioning I-85 Business gets us 2/3 of the way to straightening out this mess. I'd like to move US 220 also, but it's not clear how to do that.

US-220 is getting pretty close to being obsoleted by I-73//I-73/I-74 south of Greensboro.  As soon as Rockingham is bypassed, it should be decommissioned then.

US 220 is not going to be decommissioned. It is already an important route throughout NC and points north, so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities, seeing that they're doing this to US 70 and probably other US routes as well.

[sprjus4]

Perhaps not extended, but it could be truncated. It's fully parallel to I-73 south of Greensboro to its southern terminus, so a good start could be ending it at Greensboro.

Once I-73 is complete (if ever) between Roanoke and Myrtle Beach, having the highway terminate at Roanoke, and solely existing north of there, would be logical.

[froggie]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

[Strider]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

Wrong. US 220 was just moved back to its original routing between Ellebre and Candor. That wasn't a violation and AASHTO didn't call out NCDOT for doing that. So that makes it possible to move the rest of it back to its original route. The only part of US 220 that cannot be moved back to its original route is the one going from Greensboro to VA state line.

[Roadsguy]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

Wrong. US 220 was just moved back to its original routing between Ellebre and Candor. That wasn't a violation and AASHTO didn't call out NCDOT for doing that. So that makes it possible to move the rest of it back to its original route. The only part of US 220 that cannot be moved back to its original route is the one going from Greensboro to VA state line.

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

[ahj2000]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

Where can a nerd find these policies to read for himself? I've always been curious to read the legalese. (How else do you judge what goes on in Fictional?)

[LM117]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

Wrong. US 220 was just moved back to its original routing between Ellebre and Candor. That wasn't a violation and AASHTO didn't call out NCDOT for doing that. So that makes it possible to move the rest of it back to its original route. The only part of US 220 that cannot be moved back to its original route is the one going from Greensboro to VA state line.

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

Yep, and in Wilmington US-17 was put back through the city after I-140 was completed.

[Dirt Roads]

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

Yep, and in Wilmington US-17 was put back through the city after I-140 was completed.

However, both of those routes continue to other destinations.  Rockingham is the final destination for US-220, which will be obsoleted once I-73/I-74 is completely connected to US-74.

I thought somebody commented here about US-264 once I-587 gets signed.  That route also continues to "other destinations", if you consider Belhaven and Englehard to be "destinations".  But the link to the parent would be removed.  And in that case, you have the additional issue that there is a parallel US-264A for a significant portion.  [But if want to worry about that issue, please post it in the I-587 thread].

[cowboy_wilhelm]

I-26 eastbound near Hendersonville (just past exit 54) will be shut down for a few days due to a depression in the roadway. Probably part of the same drain pipe that failed and caused a depression on the westbound off-ramp 19 months ago.

When is the sinkhole on Exit 54 ramp from I-26 West going to be fixed?

[sparker]

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

Yep, and in Wilmington US-17 was put back through the city after I-140 was completed.

However, both of those routes continue to other destinations.  Rockingham is the final destination for US-220, which will be obsoleted once I-73/I-74 is completely connected to US-74.

I thought somebody commented here about US-264 once I-587 gets signed.  That route also continues to "other destinations", if you consider Belhaven and Englehard to be "destinations".  But the link to the parent would be removed.  And in that case, you have the additional issue that there is a parallel US-264A for a significant portion.  [But if want to worry about that issue, please post it in the I-587 thread].

In case anyone has forgotten, the east end of US 264 is back at parent US 64 near Mahns Harbor by the Outer Banks; severing its western end by I-587 subsumption isn't an issue in that respect.

[Strider]

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

Yep, and in Wilmington US-17 was put back through the city after I-140 was completed.

However, both of those routes continue to other destinations.  Rockingham is the final destination for US-220, which will be obsoleted once I-73/I-74 is completely connected to US-74.

Final destination or not, people will still use US 220 to reach Rockingham city limits so it will not be obsoleted.

[wdcrft63]

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?

Yep, and in Wilmington US-17 was put back through the city after I-140 was completed.

However, both of those routes continue to other destinations.  Rockingham is the final destination for US-220, which will be obsoleted once I-73/I-74 is completely connected to US-74.

Final destination or not, people will still use US 220 to reach Rockingham city limits so it will not be obsoleted.

NCDOT is not consistent in how it handles US highways paralleled by interstates, but it is consistent in not decommissioning them.

[froggie]

so I will not be surprised if US 220 gets moved back to its original routing through various towns/cities

This goes against AASHTO policy for US route alignment.  So unless AASHTO breaks its own policies, this won't be happening either.  Keeping US 220 and adhering to AASHTO policy would mean leaving it on the freeway.

US 70 is a different situation, as that realignment is through an urban area along Principal Arterial/NHS roads.  Very different from US 220 which lacks such between Rockingham and Greensboro.

Wrong. US 220 was just moved back to its original routing between Ellebre and Candor. That wasn't a violation and AASHTO didn't call out NCDOT for doing that. So that makes it possible to move the rest of it back to its original route. The only part of US 220 that cannot be moved back to its original route is the one going from Greensboro to VA state line.

Not wrong.  It's clear that the AASHTO Route Numbering Committee is simply not paying attention to its own policies in the examples you cited.

To answer ahj2000's question, AASHTO's policy on US route numbering can be found here.