Print

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

[tolbs17]

Ooo

https://wcti12.com/news/local/us-17-jacksonville-bypass-closed-due-to-icy-conditions

[tolbs17]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

[tolbs17]

For I-87, I-74, and I-73, I expect welcome centers to be built like every interstate in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina have.

But I feel like for the dismal swamp area, it would have to be built on a new alignment, shifted to the east a little bit.

[sprjus4]

US-17 has a welcome center just south of the Virginia state line, although it needs an interchange constructed to provide two-way access on an ultimate limited access design.

[tolbs17]

US-17 has a welcome center just south of the Virginia state line, although it needs an interchange constructed to provide two-way access on an ultimate limited access design.

I assume you mean the Dismal Swamp welcome center...

[sprjus4]

US-17 has a welcome center just south of the Virginia state line, although it needs an interchange constructed to provide two-way access on an ultimate limited access design.

I assume you mean the Dismal Swamp welcome center...

Yes, that’s the one on US-17 south of the Virginia state line.

[architect77]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

I-540 was planned complete with pamphlets in 1990. The state had not yet seen the level of growth that would come after being named 1993 or 1994 best place to live.

They also had not made the 8 lane configuration the standard yet. The 85/40 duplex is 8 lanes only because it’s 2 interstates. It was built in the 90s (taking almost 8-10 years) due to the traffic and staging.

In reality 540 on the Northern side was built before it was needed at all. Traffic was very light for the first few years.


 

[tolbs17]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

In reality 540 on the Northern side was built before it was needed at all. Traffic was very light for the first few years.

prior to 2007, maybe. But after that, no. It was crowded by then as soon as the eastern segment to the Knightdale bypass opened.

[architect77]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

In reality 540 on the Northern side was built before it was needed at all. Traffic was very light for the first few years.

prior to 2007, maybe. But after that, no. It was crowded by then as soon as the eastern segment to the Knightdale bypass opened.

Do you think the route is too close in on the Northern half? The Southern half goes much further out.

My Dad used to tell me after I moved away that they were building a superhighway (540) and I laughed like to him it might be but not me from an Atlanta perspective.

Once I rode on I-540 I agreed with him. The grading of the right of way is big and it does fall under the category of a superhighway in my opinion.

[CanesFan27]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

In reality 540 on the Northern side was built before it was needed at all. Traffic was very light for the first few years.

prior to 2007, maybe. But after that, no. It was crowded by then as soon as the eastern segment to the Knightdale bypass opened.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[CanesFan27]

THe old Garden Parkway project has "evolved" - it's now the leaner, shorter, and completely toll-free, Catawba Crossings Project.

https://www.wcnc.com/article/traffic/new-bridge-charlotte-mecklenburg-gaston-belmont-catawba-river-crossing-plan-study-traffic-travel/275-faab8e03-94d0-4be4-b460-4dc8eb3316bc

Summary and some commentary:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/remember-ill-fated-garden-parkway-it.html

[tolbs17]

When planning upright before the East End Connector's opening, I-540 in Northern Raleigh should have been built as 8 lanes. They KNEW that explosive growth in that area and Wake Forest would happen.

In reality 540 on the Northern side was built before it was needed at all. Traffic was very light for the first few years.

prior to 2007, maybe. But after that, no. It was crowded by then as soon as the eastern segment to the Knightdale bypass opened.

Do you think the route is too close in on the Northern half? The Southern half goes much further out.

Not really IMO. Also, there were plans to toll all of I-540 totally but that was ultimately rejected. So if anything, it will only get express lanes (like I-485 in Charlotte).

[tolbs17]

This is very bad news! It's almost like we are driving in 1974...

https://www.wral.com/mobile-home-blocks-traffic-for-hours-on-us-64-at-lizard-lick-road-near-zebulon/20098362/

[tolbs17]

Here's a conceptual design -



The US-64 EB -> I-95 NB and US-64 WB -> I-95 SB loop-ramp movements would be replaced with 2-lane 55 mph flyovers. The remaining "legs" (US-64 WB -> I-95 NB, US-64 EB -> I-95 SB, I-95 NB -> US-64 EB, I-95 SB -> US-64 WB) would be realigned to accommodate 55 mph speeds. The remaining movements (I-95 SB -> US-64 EB, I-95 NB -> US-64 WB) would remain using the loops.

The C/D roads on US-64 would be mostly eliminated with parts of them retained to serve as long acceleration lanes separated from the mainline for the loops. The C/D roads on I-95 would remain in order to accommodate the future Sunset Ave interchange proposed that would utilize extended C/D roads, and they would also likely be widened to at least 2-lanes in areas where needed.

When looking at this proposal again, is there ANY way that you can show NCDOT this and maybe they can include it in the feasibility study projects or come with this as a new proposal? If it is possible, then I might do the same for the I-95/I-795/US-264 interchange as well as the I-87/I-540 one.

[jdunlop]

Here's a conceptual design -



The US-64 EB -> I-95 NB and US-64 WB -> I-95 SB loop-ramp movements would be replaced with 2-lane 55 mph flyovers. The remaining "legs" (US-64 WB -> I-95 NB, US-64 EB -> I-95 SB, I-95 NB -> US-64 EB, I-95 SB -> US-64 WB) would be realigned to accommodate 55 mph speeds. The remaining movements (I-95 SB -> US-64 EB, I-95 NB -> US-64 WB) would remain using the loops.

The C/D roads on US-64 would be mostly eliminated with parts of them retained to serve as long acceleration lanes separated from the mainline for the loops. The C/D roads on I-95 would remain in order to accommodate the future Sunset Ave interchange proposed that would utilize extended C/D roads, and they would also likely be widened to at least 2-lanes in areas where needed.

When looking at this proposal again, is there ANY way that you can show NCDOT this and maybe they can include it in the feasibility study projects or come with this as a new proposal? If it is possible, then I might do the same for the I-95/I-795/US-264 interchange as well as the I-87/I-540 one.

The volume on the ramps doesn't justify the expense for these new ramps.  The cloverleaf (with C-D roads) works fine.  (The highest AADT for the loop ramps is the 64 EB to 95 NB, at 5400.  I wouldn't look at a flyover replacement until the loop volume gets over 10K.)

So, NCDOT HAS looked at this, and is not going to move forward with it for the upcoming feasibility study.  I'll mention it at next week's kickoff meeting, though.

That said, if this had been for a new freeway/interchange, rather than a retrofit, there'd be merit in the concept. (We're not building a lot of new cloverleafs!) Probably still would be rejected due to cost.

[ARMOURERERIC]

There is a similar interchange in my part of the state...I40 at US 321 that does seem to be under some stress.  I would be curious about the ADT of 321s to 40e.   I know the merge of the CD lanes onto 40e do become congested at turning rush hour.

[jdunlop]

There is a similar interchange in my part of the state...I40 at US 321 that does seem to be under some stress.  I would be curious about the ADT of 321s to 40e.   I know the merge of the CD lanes onto 40e do become congested at turning rush hour.

Here's the AADT map with the volumes: https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ff72d8f962bf40ac8973669fcdc63380

The volumes in Hickory on the loop ramps vary from 2300 to 7400 (SB to EB), so still under what I'd consider a problem level.  That stretch of I-40 is getting close to needing six lanes; I could see auxiliary lanes being added between some interchanges as well that aren't currently there as part of that project, including between 321 and Lenior-Rhyne Blvd (the EB on-ramp from the 321 C-D is at 14K, which is a pretty heavy merge.)

I know that I-40 project's been studied, but all I see in the area is a pavement rehab one for now.

[cowboy_wilhelm]

There is a similar interchange in my part of the state...I40 at US 321 that does seem to be under some stress.  I would be curious about the ADT of 321s to 40e.   I know the merge of the CD lanes onto 40e do become congested at turning rush hour.

Here's the AADT map with the volumes: https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ff72d8f962bf40ac8973669fcdc63380

The volumes in Hickory on the loop ramps vary from 2300 to 7400 (SB to EB), so still under what I'd consider a problem level.  That stretch of I-40 is getting close to needing six lanes; I could see auxiliary lanes being added between some interchanges as well that aren't currently there as part of that project, including between 321 and Lenior-Rhyne Blvd (the EB on-ramp from the 321 C-D is at 14K, which is a pretty heavy merge.)

I know that I-40 project's been studied, but all I see in the area is a pavement rehab one for now.

A 1/4 mile long exit lane leading up to the westbound exit for US 321 would be nice during the next 10+ years it takes for the widening project to move forward.

What is the average volume threshold for a multi-lane exit with option lane? There are a lot of newer projects with these (Goldsboro Bypass, CF Harvey Pkwy, Asheboro Bypass, Greenville SW Bypass, Monroe Bypass), but then older interchanges with a lot more traffic still have a single lane freeway-to-freeway exit (e.g., US 74 at I-26 EB and I-85 SB). It would be a relatively easy and effective upgrade, but it never seems to be considered unless it's on new location or a widening.

[bob7374]

NCDOT press release announcing awarding of Hampstead Bypass contract. Are they trying to tell us something, or is it an error? They refer to the highway as the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, all the plans have it signed as NC 417:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-01-27-hampstead-bypass-awarded.aspx

[jdunlop]

There is a similar interchange in my part of the state...I40 at US 321 that does seem to be under some stress.  I would be curious about the ADT of 321s to 40e.   I know the merge of the CD lanes onto 40e do become congested at turning rush hour.

Here's the AADT map with the volumes: https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ff72d8f962bf40ac8973669fcdc63380

The volumes in Hickory on the loop ramps vary from 2300 to 7400 (SB to EB), so still under what I'd consider a problem level.  That stretch of I-40 is getting close to needing six lanes; I could see auxiliary lanes being added between some interchanges as well that aren't currently there as part of that project, including between 321 and Lenior-Rhyne Blvd (the EB on-ramp from the 321 C-D is at 14K, which is a pretty heavy merge.)

I know that I-40 project's been studied, but all I see in the area is a pavement rehab one for now.

A 1/4 mile long exit lane leading up to the westbound exit for US 321 would be nice during the next 10+ years it takes for the widening project to move forward.

What is the average volume threshold for a multi-lane exit with option lane? There are a lot of newer projects with these (Goldsboro Bypass, CF Harvey Pkwy, Asheboro Bypass, Greenville SW Bypass, Monroe Bypass), but then older interchanges with a lot more traffic still have a single lane freeway-to-freeway exit (e.g., US 74 at I-26 EB and I-85 SB). It would be a relatively easy and effective upgrade, but it never seems to be considered unless it's on new location or a widening.

I'd probably want the deceleration lane approaching 321 to be longer than ~1300'.  Would be nice as an interim, not sure it can happen.  (It's only money.  And a thousand other places that need improvements.)

For ramps, a single lane can handle 10K+ ADT volume.  What you're seeing on newer freeways with option lane exits is often driven by weaving issues.  If there's an upstream onramp that creates a lane and a downstream off-ramp closely spaced, our analysis may show that the weaving distance between the two is not enough for a simple weave.  We'll add the option lane more for the mainline exit rather than for capacity.  Of course, the off-ramp will need two lanes for this.  Changing to an option lane isn't that difficult, the expense is in widening the off-ramp.  (There are some grading details with paving a gore that one needs to pay attention to.)

A challenge is signing the option lane.  It now requires the huge signs that have the individual lane indications (you guys here know more about what to call them than I do.  That's not my area of expertise, or interest beyond what I need to work with in designing interchanges.)  I preferred the older signs that allowed us to indicate that a lane could exit but wasn't an "exit only" lane. The MUTCD stopped that and causes us to spend a lot more money on overhead signs than we used to. (Personal editorial, not a department position.)

For a cloverleaf, the weave area tends to break down when the combined volume on the two loops gets over about 1000/hour.  That does depend on the distance between the two gores.  I don't think you'll see many cloverleafs in the future on NC highways.  At service interchanges (surface roads) the most efficient higher volume interchange is a parclo B (off-ramp loops from the freeway) where the interchange ramp intersections are leftovers/right-turns (they are RCIs/superstreets/RCUT intersections) and we're converting some exiting ones to that.  One recent example would be at I-40 WB and US 70B in Garner (exit 306) where the on-ramp loop from EB 70 was converted to a leftover.  That was a safety issue on I-40 there.  To your point of "easy" fix, that was done as part of the widening project, so there was a funding source to do it.

[wdcrft63]

NCDOT press release announcing awarding of Hampstead Bypass contract. Are they trying to tell us something, or is it an error? They refer to the highway as the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, all the plans have it signed as NC 417:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-01-27-hampstead-bypass-awarded.aspx

It's NC 417 on the first section, ending at NC210. When the entire bypass is done, I'm assuming it will then become US 17.

[tolbs17]

NCDOT press release announcing awarding of Hampstead Bypass contract. Are they trying to tell us something, or is it an error? They refer to the highway as the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, all the plans have it signed as NC 417:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-01-27-hampstead-bypass-awarded.aspx

It's NC 417 on the first section, ending at NC210. When the entire bypass is done, I'm assuming it will then become US 17.

But wasn't US-17 moved off the freeway when the western leg of the bypass opened?

[Roadsguy]

I believe I read that the original plan was for the combined Hampstead Bypass/Military Cutoff Road extension to be designated US 17 Bypass, leaving US 17 on its current alignment (something about not needing to update the addresses of everything on the road), but that they decided against this because the "bypass" route would dump directly into Wilmington, not bypass the entire city like I-140 does. This would make NC 417 the permanent designation unless they change their minds or decide to reroute I-140 onto the bypass.

I presume the headline of the press release is a typical case of someone not getting the memo, which most if not all DOTs are guilty of at least sometimes, but is particularly noticeable from NCDOT because of how frequently designations change.

[tolbs17]

This is what many people wanted and this will be exciting!

https://www.dailyadvance.com/news/local/hanig-construction-to-start-on-long-delayed-mid-currituck-bridge-in-2023/article_df2727d3-a767-5a31-b895-aca06affd046.html

[froggie]

^ There's a disconnect somewhere.  NCDOT's webpage on the project lists a 2025 begin, not 2023 as the local representative claims.