AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Southeast => Topic started by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM

Title: North Carolina
Post by: FLRoads on January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM
Have the exit numbers along I-795 been corrected to reflect its mileage and not US 117's?
Title: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 29, 2009, 07:59:54 AM
Inspired by the "Garden Pkwy" thread even though not related to it, the new NCTA has also sped up the process on the Mid-Currituck Bridge connecting US 158 on the mainland to NC 12 on the Outer Banks around Corolla.  Honestly I don't believe that the connection will relieve that much traffic on US 158(and it won't north of the bridge) and NC 12 as most head to Nags Head and Kill Devil Hills anyhow.  http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Mid_Currituck/ (http://www.ncturnpike.org/projects/Mid_Currituck/)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on March 29, 2009, 10:38:27 AM
$659.2 million for that span!  :wow:

Having driven NC-12 up to Corolla many times, that cost is unjustified. The road more or less serves a number of expensive beach homes, including vacation residences of Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis.
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on March 29, 2009, 10:35:41 PM
And No Build is the option they should take...
Title: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on March 31, 2009, 11:06:09 PM
Tell me if my understanding of the Greensboro Urban Loop is correct.

I had read a Wikipedia article and saw a YouTube video, concerning the routing of I-40 in/around Greensboro, NC. I-40 and I-85 were moved out of Downtown Greensboro, to follow the southern bypass toward Durham and Raleigh. Then, because of protests from residents (and confusion between I-40 and I-40 Business), I-40 was moved back through Greensboro, eliminating I-40 Business altogether. Also, I-85 is still along the southern portion of the Loop.

Again, is my understanding of this routing correct?

Lastly, is I-40 East through Greensboro a quicker route to Raleigh-Durham? Or is I-85 North around Greensboro quicker to get to Raleigh-Durham?
 
Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: FLRoads on March 31, 2009, 11:10:17 PM
Yes, your understanding is correct. Interstate 40 has been routed back onto its original route through downtown Greensboro.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Interstate/Future 73, which also enters the mix on the western portion of the beltway between Interstate 85 and Interstate 40 at Exit 212...
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on March 31, 2009, 11:27:06 PM
^^ You know, I saw that (Future I-73) on the Urban Loop page, but I didn't know where it started. It seemed to just appear out of nowhere (lol).

Thanks for the confirmation.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: OracleUsr on April 01, 2009, 01:27:53 AM
Dude, I live in Statesville, and use the temp alignment of I-40 to get to my mother's house in Haw River (between Greensboro and Raleigh) all the time.  I hate Death Valley, and the speed is 65mph on the entire "bypass" of I-73 to I-85.  I don't think it's that much further.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Chris on April 01, 2009, 05:43:38 AM
Isn't the I-73/I-74 to be rerouted via High Point across US 311? It would connect to the US 220 near Randleman. But what number does the Randleman - Greensboro section get? Just US 220?

The 2009 RandMcNally map says I-40 is still taking the southern bypass. I guess they aren't sure either.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 08:23:12 AM
OracleUsr said:
Dude, I live in Statesville, and use the temp alignment of I-40 to get to my mother's house in Haw River (between Greensboro and Raleigh) all the time.  I hate Death Valley, and the speed is 65mph on the entire "bypass" of I-73 to I-85.  I don't think it's that much further.

Bryant5493 says:
Okay, thank you.

froggie said:
The complaints about noise from residents along the southwest side of the loop was a red herring.  The real reason why I-40 was moved back onto its previous route through Greensboro was so that NCDOT wouldn't lose Interstate Maintenance funds.

Bryant5493 says:
So, with the Business Interstate designation, NCDOT wouldn't be able to keep the Interstate Maintenance funds?


Be well,

Bryant
 
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2009, 01:23:10 PM
I updated all of the area guides (http://www.southeastroads.com) to reflect the current alignments for Interstate 40 (what a pain in the butt it was). There is also a blog post (https://www.aaroads.com/blog/?p=171) I made last fall about it too.

When we drove through there in December, and from what I've read from Bob Malme's Future NC Interstates (http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/ncfutint.html) pages, signage will not be replaced until later this year.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 02:23:41 PM
^^ I saw the updates and read the blog -- Good work! :clap:


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 01, 2009, 03:28:13 PM
I busted out laughing when I heard I-40 was being put back in Greensboro as I had read something(it might have been the nonexistent NCRoads.com(I'm not sure though)) that said that many would still use I-40 through Greensboro whatever number it is was called due to supposedly faster travel time.  :-D :poke:
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 07:00:59 PM
^^ Why's that?


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 01, 2009, 08:54:07 PM
^^ Oh, okay. Didn't know that. The more you know, the more you grow. :D


Be well,

Bryan
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 01, 2009, 10:51:33 PM
And they have shuffled around the U.S. highways into useless multiplexes too. I was pondering what will happen with U.S. 220 once Interstate 73 is completed northwest of town. Will Wendover Avenue be devoid of any numbered route when that happens as U.S. 220 uselessly overlaps with the new freeway? That is if the route even survives the completion of Interstate 73 through N.C.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 02, 2009, 03:18:44 PM
Don't forget about how US 421 now follows the SW portion of the loop to I-40 before multiplexing with I-40 to Winston-Salem and multiplexing with all of Winston-Salem's Business I-40 along with US 158.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: jackson1300 on April 06, 2009, 09:34:50 AM
In my opinion the stupidest part of the whole thing is why did NC DOT renumber the old I-40 & I-85 to Business 40 & 85 instead of either make the entire Greensboro Loop I-840 and kept I-40 & 85 on their current alignments or, renumber the old I-40 & I-85 to 3di interstates.  In my opinion the Business Loops of I-40 & I-85 are not used what they are intended for and they are located way too close in distance. The two Business 85's begin and end within 5 miles of each other (High Point's Bus. 85 and Greensboro's Bus. 85), and the two Business 40's (Winston-Salem & Greensboro).  I thought a Business I- designation was not intended for "freeway" purposes, but to guide travelers into a city for food, lodging, and fueling purposes with an easy access return to the interstate, not just to "cover up" the old interstate designation, and cause way too much confusion with travelers who are not too familiar with these areas.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Bryant5493 on April 06, 2009, 10:19:15 AM
^^ I think that makes sense, signing the loop with one continuous number. The other routes could be secondary, but one primary route number would be great.

Ex: The Athens Perimeter Highway/Paul Brouwn Parkway (SR 10 Loop) -- this route also has concurrencies with US 29, US 78, US 129, US 441, SR 8 and SR 15, but the SR 10 Loop (SR 422 Loop, which isn't signed) is the only continuous number on the loop; the others turn off onto surface streets.


Be well,

Bryant
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: Alex on April 06, 2009, 10:23:52 AM
The business loop for Interstate 85 is considered to be joined with Interstate 85 on the five-mile stretch between the two independent segments. That is why the exit numbers are in the 30s through Greensboro. They were going to do the same with Business Loop I-40 and continue the Winston-Salem exit numbers.

(http://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/southeast/greensboro_map_old.gif)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 30, 2009, 03:48:00 PM
Quote
And No Build is the option they should take...
  But the NCTA has now signed a development agreement with ACS  http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4134 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4134)
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: njroadhorse on May 02, 2009, 01:02:11 PM
Depending on the location, it could be an alternative to getting into Corolla and Nags Head and avoid the beach traffic that funnels in near Roanoke Island between 64, 158 and 264.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2009, 08:56:01 AM
http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-loop-confusion-090508,0,3682388.story (http://www.myfox8.com/wghp-loop-confusion-090508,0,3682388.story)   Beginning Sunday NCDOT plans to start fixing signage in the Greensboro area along I-40 and so on.  However, this article did not include the exit renumberings along I-40 and I-73 but I assume that they are a part of the signage switch.  :confused:
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: njroadhorse on May 09, 2009, 09:15:47 AM
Wouldn't it be better to sign Bus I-40 and Bus I-85 as regular 3di's, or just keep their original routes through Greensboro?
Sheesh, this scheme is hard to keep up on, especially when the routes kept changing.  X-(
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 09, 2009, 09:28:20 AM
Quote
Wouldn't it be better to sign Bus I-40 and Bus I-85 as regular 3di's, or just keep their original routes through Greensboro?
  Business I-85 yes(of course not the portion multiplexed with I-40), Business I-40 maybe but I prefer just leaving I-40's original route through Greensboro.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: florida on May 09, 2009, 01:26:46 PM
All I can say is hopefully someone's got "historic" photos before they started  and during the construction of this monstrosity.  :-D Talk about a roadgeek's paradise.

"Chronicles of the Greensboro Urban Loop"
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: J N Winkler on May 09, 2009, 04:36:58 PM
Quote from: froggie
The complaints about noise from residents along the southwest side of the loop was a red herring.  The real reason why I-40 was moved back onto its previous route through Greensboro was so that NCDOT wouldn't lose Interstate Maintenance funds.

I know this is the explanation Jim Dunlop pushed in MTR, but it doesn't convince.  NCDOT had the option of applying for a concealed Interstate designation for Business 40 which would have maintained eligibility for IM funding--this is what California does with Business 80 in Sacramento (hidden Route 51, hidden I-305).  Moreover, NCDOT should have, and probably would have, considered the implications of IM funding before relocating the I-40 designation to the bypass in the first place.

It is, I think, relevant that the bypass route was longer than the original I-40 routing, and was not attracting I-40 traffic aside from trucks not wanting to go through Death Valley.  The shift in designation looks like a belated acceptance of reality.
Title: Re: Greensboro Urban Loop
Post by: OracleUsr on May 10, 2009, 11:50:45 PM
Here's a photo from just off the loop, coming from Groometown Road on to the I-85 bypass:

(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2231/crw2831.jpg)

Two notes:

1.  This is an unusual combination sign in that the route number matches the exit number.  I snapped this picture today because I believe this will soon be Exit 78, in keeping with the exit numbers on US 220/I-73.

2.  The road here is an off ramp from an exit off I-85, but the exit number is for I-40's mile numbers.
Title: Re: Mid-Currituck Bridge
Post by: Alex on May 13, 2009, 10:57:56 AM
Quote
Depending on the location, it could be an alternative to getting into Corolla and Nags Head and avoid the beach traffic that funnels in near Roanoke Island between 64, 158 and 264.

It will only serve local interests at Corolla and along NC-12. NC-12 is just two lanes and on some stretches the speed limits are as low as 25.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 17, 2009, 10:28:40 AM
Have the exit numbers along I-795 been corrected to reflect its mileage and not US 117's?
Probably not but hopefully they'll fix it while they repair I-795  ;-) http://www.charlotteobserver.com/232/story/838558.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/232/story/838558.html)
Title: I-140/US 17 Wilmington Bypass
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 17, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
Some odd good news in the North Carolina Transportation Front -

Thanks to nearly $26 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, along with $100 million from other sources, a previously unfunded Interstate 140/US 17 Bypass construction project will get underway in 2010.

The 'A' Section of the Brunswick County segment of I-140/US 17 is the benefactor of the new funding. This segment will run from US 17 (near where NC 87 meets it in Bishop) to US 74/76 east of Malmo. This will be a design/build project.

The 'B' Section from US 74/76 to where the current freeway ends at US 421 is scheduled to see construction begin in 2012. Land acquisition for this segment is ongoing.

So it now appears that for a few years there will be a gap in I-140 and the US 17 Bypass from US 74/76 to US 421.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090715/ARTICLES/907159988/1004?Title=U-S-17-bypass-s-Brunswick-leg-to-be-started-earlier-than-planned (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090715/ARTICLES/907159988/1004?Title=U-S-17-bypass-s-Brunswick-leg-to-be-started-earlier-than-planned)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SSF on July 19, 2009, 10:45:28 PM
does NC use glass beads in their new thermo?

when it rained up there, i had a very hard time seeing the striping on their roadways.
Title: Cape Fear Skyway
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2009, 12:59:51 PM
The North Carolina Turnpike Authority recently released a few new details for the proposed Cape Fear Skyway.

First, the bridge will most likely be a cable-stayed bridge rising anywhere from 165-187 feet over the cape Fear River. If it is a cable-stayed bridge, the design will be very similar to the new Ravenel Bridge in Charleston, SC.

The NCTA also increased the proposed cost of the bridge from anywhere between $1.1 to 1.5 billion.

Currently, no specific construction or routing details are planned. A preferred route has not been finalized, and construction could begin in 2013. Early estimates for completion and opening to traffic is sometime in 2017.

Story: http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090218/ARTICLES/902180243/-1/NEWS4538?Title=Vision-for-billion-dollar-Cape-Fear-Skyway-clearer-now (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20090218/ARTICLES/902180243/-1/NEWS4538?Title=Vision-for-billion-dollar-Cape-Fear-Skyway-clearer-now)
Title: US-311
Post by: rickmastfan67 on August 09, 2009, 03:23:13 AM
Does anybody know why NCDOT will not post the Northern extension they requested for the route back in 2003 with the AASHTO?  I mean, they have it on all of their maps, but yet have not posted it in the field.  Sometimes, I just don't get NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on September 21, 2009, 03:40:38 PM
I-85 Yadkin bridge: If we start planning to build it, maybe the money will come (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/i-85-yadkin-bridge-if-we-start-planning-to-build-it-maybe-the-money-will-come)

Quote
The scary old I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River near Salisbury is woefully overdue for a $350 million replacement. Agreed. But who wants to pay for it?

The state applied this summer for federal stimulus money under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to buy a new bridge.

If the Obama administration turns thumbs down on North Carolina's Yadkin request, our backup plan is to make it a toll project. The N.C. Turnpike Authority would borrow the money, build the new bridge, and then collect tolls from I-85 drivers for the next 30 to 40 years.



DOT moves ahead on I-85 plans (http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20090903/ARTICLES/909039990/1005/NEWS?Title=DOT-moves-ahead-on-I-85-plans)

Quote
The I-85 Corridor Improvement Project will consist of two contracts that will complete a comprehensive overhaul of the highway, bridge and rail infrastructure located along 6.8 miles of I-85 from north of Long Ferry Road (Exit 81) in Rowan County to Interstate 85 Business Loop (Exit 87) in Davidson County. The total project cost is estimated at more than $300 million. The first contract would widen 2.2 miles of the interstate, including replacing the bridges over the Yadkin River and improving the sharp curve along this stretch. The second contract would widen the remaining section of highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 21, 2009, 05:32:40 PM
The state made the formal application in July:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seroads/message/8973 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seroads/message/8973)

The website gives great detail on the actual plans for the project.  The project, in addition to the new bridge and widening, would redesign a number of interchanges north of the river and would still preserve the Wil-Cox Bridge (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/us29/wilcox.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/us29/wilcox.html))  opened in 1924.

http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on September 21, 2009, 06:14:37 PM
Pardon my ignorance, but will that include the Exit 82 (US 29/70 NC 150 Spencer Exit) remodeling?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 21, 2009, 06:22:02 PM
Yes...it will eliminate all the left exits/entrances on the Lexington side of the river.

Exits 82 (US 29/70/NC 150) and 83 (NC 150) will be combined into one interchange.

Exit 85 (Clark Road) will be eliminated

Exit 86 (Belmont Road) will be rebuilt.  No word on what will happen to 'Big Bill' though.

http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/projectplans/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/projectplans/)
http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/download/yadkin_publichearingmap.pdf (http://www.ncdot.gov/recovery/i85corridor/download/yadkin_publichearingmap.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on September 22, 2009, 02:26:35 AM
U.S. 25 widening to begin (http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20090604/NEWS/906039909)

Quote
A $17 million widening of U.S. 25 will start this month and bring the road up to interstate standards.

The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded the project to Tennessee-based Wright Brothers Construction. The work is scheduled to be completed by August 2012.

The project has been in the planning stages for decades but never received funding, DOT Division Construction Engineer Jamie Wilson said. The DOT bought the right-of-way for the widening project more than 25 years ago.

The three-mile section, which begins at the Interstate 26 exit, will become a four-lane divided highway when complete.

The only access to the road will be through Spartanburg Highway or Upward Road. The DOT is creating a frontage road for residents located along the section of highway. The access road will run on the south end of the highway from Tabor Road to Laurel Creek Drive.

Access to the highway along the section will close as the project proceeds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on September 23, 2009, 02:22:50 AM
Time to build a straight line route I-46 from Charlotte to Raleigh to Norfolk. :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2009, 04:55:03 PM
Residents and tourists input is being sought in an online "willingness to pay" survey that the North Carolina Turnpike Authority will use to get credit to sell bonds to pay for construction of the bridge.

The survey, which gives scenarios on time savings and what you would pay to cross the bridge to save time, is located at http://www.nustats.com/midcurrituck/. (http://www.nustats.com/midcurrituck/.)

With toll ranges from $6 to $30, the survey will help the NCTA make revenue projections. The survey is part of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study and should be complete by next spring.

The survey takes no longer than five minutes.
 
For more:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/how-much-should-bridge-toll-be-867106.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/how-much-should-bridge-toll-be-867106.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 18, 2009, 05:06:00 PM
The proposed Cape Fear Skyway is at a crossroads as elected leaders in both Brunswick and New Hanover Counties debate on which is their preferred choice for the highway and bridge.

At a recent meeting between the North Carolina Turnpike Authority and the Wilmington Area Transportation Advisory Committee, various leaders voiced their opinions on what route the proposed toll road should follow.

Full Story & Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/cape-fear-skyway-at-crossroads.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/cape-fear-skyway-at-crossroads.html)

Story Links:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091014/ARTICLES/910149944/1155?Title=Proposed-Skyway-Bridge-still-has-a-twisted-path-to-follow (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091014/ARTICLES/910149944/1155?Title=Proposed-Skyway-Bridge-still-has-a-twisted-path-to-follow)

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091009/ARTICLES/910099954?Title=Cape-Fear-Skyway-s-future-hinges-on-Wednesday-meeting (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091009/ARTICLES/910099954?Title=Cape-Fear-Skyway-s-future-hinges-on-Wednesday-meeting)

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091017/ARTICLES/910174002/1018/LETTERS?Title=Editorial-It-s-not-pie-in-the-sky (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091017/ARTICLES/910174002/1018/LETTERS?Title=Editorial-It-s-not-pie-in-the-sky)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 18, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
A few months ago, the NCTA announced that they may be able to save $60 million in the cost of the $660 million Mid-Currituck Bridge.  Last week, they unveiled that plan to the public.  The plan already has mainland Currituck County residents (specifically those in Aydlett) concerned.

http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/new-currituck-bridge-option-unveiled-894287.html (http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/new-currituck-bridge-option-unveiled-894287.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 22, 2009, 09:07:31 PM
The NCTA has been floating this trial balloon for about 18 months now.  But they are looking at the possibility of tolling parts of or all of the existing and soon to be constructed US 17/I-140 Wilmington Bypass to help fund the construction of the proposed Cape Fear Skyway toll project.
 
Even if this would happen - and there are many hurdles to clear - the tolls would only reduce the nearly $50 million/per year over 40 years in annual gap funding from the NC General Budget by about $11 million.
 
Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091018/COLUMNIST/910189982/-1/LIVING08?Title=Crossroads-Tolls-on-table-for-Skyway-project (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091018/COLUMNIST/910189982/-1/LIVING08?Title=Crossroads-Tolls-on-table-for-Skyway-project)
 
Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/ncta-continues-to-look-at-tolling-i.html (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/10/ncta-continues-to-look-at-tolling-i.html)

Title: I-40 distance sign "Barstow, Calif. 2,554" stolen - will not be replaced.
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 14, 2009, 11:10:41 AM
The sign on I-40 that reads "Barstow, Ca 2,554" in Wilmington was stolen again for the fourth time.  This time NCDOT says they aren't going to replace it.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963 (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963)


And a photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40)

In all the trips I've made down to Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach, I would pass the sign and want to get a photo with it, but I always said "eh, I'll get it next time down." 

Oh well.
Title: Re: I-40 distance sign "Barstow, Calif. 2,554" stolen - will not be replaced.
Post by: Alex on November 14, 2009, 11:15:26 AM
The sign on I-40 that reads "Barstow, Ca 2,554" in Wilmington was stolen again for the fourth time.  This time NCDOT says they aren't going to replace it.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963 (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091112/ARTICLES/911129963)


And a photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/llnesinthesand/2935760293/in/pool-i-40)

In all the trips I've made down to Wilmington and Wrightsville Beach, I would pass the sign and want to get a photo with it, but I always said "eh, I'll get it next time down." 

Oh well.

I missed photographing the sign when I was there in 2006 as well...

I would think that an easy solution to the sign theft problem would be to mount it on the overpass nearby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: simguy228 on November 14, 2009, 07:44:42 PM
My gosh. I can't believe I-26 near Asheville is still a future route (I don't know why it not signed as an official interstate
Title: UPDATE: I-40 sign to be replaced
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 14, 2009, 11:25:44 PM
It appears that after a number of e-mails and calls - NCDOT decided to take one more look through storage - and found another distance to Barstow, CA sign.

No word on when the sign will be replaced...but it does cost about $600 to replace it.

Story: http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009 (http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 14, 2009, 11:28:31 PM
My gosh. I can't believe I-26 near Asheville is still a future route (I don't know why it not signed as an official interstate

It's a Future Interstate up to Exit #9 from I-240 because the Interstate is not up to standards.  From what I know, it will stay a Future Interstate till they reconfigure the whole I-26/I-240 interchange.


It appears that after a number of e-mails and calls - NCDOT decided to take one more look through storage - and found another distance to Barstow, CA sign.

No word on when the sign will be replaced...but it does cost about $600 to replace it.

Story: http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009 (http://www.wwaytv3.com/no_sign_road_ahead/11/2009)

Wow, I'm amazed that the DOT actually suggests you to pull over a take a picture with it when it's replaced. :wow:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: simguy228 on November 15, 2009, 08:37:48 AM
That is what I thought. Though, I found this videos on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVtWqC_4Jg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cVtWqC_4Jg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2009, 09:29:51 AM
Question is...is that the preferred alternative, or just an alternative being considered?  NCDOT's project website suggests the latter.
Title: If you are going to rename a bridge, at least come up w/something more original
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 29, 2009, 05:45:44 PM
In an effort to secure $300 million in stimulus/TIGER funding to build new
bridges over the Yadkin River on I-85, Governor Perdue has decided to rename the
Yadkin River Bridge to the 'I-85 Bridge' to stress the regional importance of
the project.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2009/11/gov-perdue-brilliant-new-yadkin-river.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 29, 2009, 06:24:17 PM
Tolls on the newly opened and free of charge Interstate 140 in Wilmington? The
Greater Wilmington Chamber of Commerce likes the idea. Why do they like the
idea, because it will assist in paying for the construction of the proposed toll
project the Cape Fear Skyway.

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091118/ARTICLES/911184000?Title=Chamber-backs-toll-for-bypass-to-fund-Skyway&tc=autorefresh
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 16, 2009, 09:30:25 PM
Great article in the Wilmington Star-News discussing the history of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. Check out the historic photos section also (73 photos in total!):

Story:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091215/ARTICLES/912159986/1004?p=1&tc=pg

Photos:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=WM&Dato=20091215&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=121509999&Ref=PH&Profile=1004&show=galleries
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on January 03, 2010, 11:20:16 PM
Not sure if my exhaustion from 5 hrs of sleep was doing the talking, but yesterday when I drove I-40 from Asheville to Statesville, it felt like the ugly stepchild road of North Carolina.  It seemed busy, questionable shoulders in spots?, and in need of a repave.  Also, I-77 was PACKED from Statesville to Charlotte at 6pm on a Saturday night.  What's the deal here?  Where are all these people coming from?  Accumulation of traffic from I-40w, Va/WVa, and W-S? 

I was driving from Nashville to Charlotte.  I-40e to Knoxville, US 11W to Kingsport, short ride up to VA state line, then I-26 to Asheville, then I-240 loop (which sucks by the way), I-40e to I-77s.


I-26 north of Asheville is an amazing drive.  The NC Welcome Center is a must-stop for anybody southbound.  The scenic view is awesome, and the building is nice.  The lady said they purposely blasted more mountain to make it as straight as possible, and an easier drive for the trucks.  There aren't any ridiculous hairpin turns or grades.  She basically said they wanted to make it much easier than I-40... modern engineering, and modern federal Interstate standards played a role in that. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 04, 2010, 01:49:52 AM
Instead of I-26 to I-240, wouldn't I-26 to US 74 to I-85 be a more direct route?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 04, 2010, 06:55:37 AM
Not sure if my exhaustion from 5 hrs of sleep was doing the talking, but yesterday when I drove I-40 from Asheville to Statesville, it felt like the ugly stepchild road of North Carolina.  It seemed busy, questionable shoulders in spots?, and in need of a repave.  Also, I-77 was PACKED from Statesville to Charlotte at 6pm on a Saturday night.  What's the deal here?  Where are all these people coming from?  Accumulation of traffic from I-40w, Va/WVa, and W-S? 

I was driving from Nashville to Charlotte.  I-40e to Knoxville, US 11W to Kingsport, short ride up to VA state line, then I-26 to Asheville, then I-240 loop (which sucks by the way), I-40e to I-77s.


I-26 north of Asheville is an amazing drive.  The NC Welcome Center is a must-stop for anybody southbound.  The scenic view is awesome, and the building is nice.  The lady said they purposely blasted more mountain to make it as straight as possible, and an easier drive for the trucks.  There aren't any ridiculous hairpin turns or grades.  She basically said they wanted to make it much easier than I-40... modern engineering, and modern federal Interstate standards played a role in that. 

I-40 from Statesville to Conover is one of the oldest parts of the highway in the state as is the section from about Old Fort to just west of Hickory.

77 is always difficult from Statesville to Charlotte from the growth in the area.  The hope is to have it six lanes all the way down from I-40 one day.

Basically I-26, US 74, I-85 and I-40, US 321, I-85 are similar to I-40/I-77 to Charlotte.

US 74 can be slow with all the traffic lights in Shelby. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lamsalfl on January 05, 2010, 12:28:22 AM
Instead of I-26 to I-240, wouldn't I-26 to US 74 to I-85 be a more direct route?

Wanted to get counties and I-40 mileage. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Hellfighter on January 05, 2010, 03:34:50 PM
Is the I-74/I-95 Interchange almost finished? According to the street view image, MCDOT was in the process of building the I-74 overpass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 05, 2010, 03:41:40 PM
It's been open for over a year.

http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg16.html

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 05, 2010, 08:23:39 PM
The Triangle Business Journal reports that NCDOT has awarded a contract to D.H. Griffin Infrastructure LLC of Greensboro to widen 2.1 miles of US 401 in Wake County.  The $8.6 million contract will widen US 401 from two lanes to four from Ligon Mill Road to Louisburg Road in the northern part of the county.

The project is one of 34 projects totaling over $107 million awarded by NCDOT on Monday, January 4.  The US 401 project is one of thirteen projects in the awards that are being funded by federal stimulus funds.

The project begins at Ligon Mill Road (where the six lane US 401 currently ends and narrows to two lanes) and will extend northward to Louisburg Road.  Work on the project may begin as early as this coming February and is slated to be completed before the end of 2011.

NCDOT's plan is to continue the widening of US 401 northwards roughly an additional 20 miles to Louisburg in Franklin County.

Story:
http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/01/04/daily5.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 09, 2010, 09:36:48 PM
AAA Carolinas has recently released their list of the 20 most substandard bridges in North Carolina.

The I-85/Yadkin River Bridge moved up two spots to #6.  Meanwhile, the top five in the list remained the same.

The entire list can be read here:

http://www.digtriad.com/news/pdf/2010_Top_20.pdf

Additional stories here:
http://www.salisburypost.com/News/010810-yadkin-bridge-on-list
http://www.wbtv.com/global/story.asp?s=11791378
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: shoptb1 on January 09, 2010, 11:31:45 PM
AAA Carolinas has recently released their list of the 20 most substandard bridges in North Carolina.

The I-85/Yadkin River Bridge moved up two spots to #6.  Meanwhile, the top five in the list remained the same.


I remember this bridge when I lived down in the Triad.  I'm wondering though...why aren't people making more of a fuss about the I-40/I-85 bridge over the South Buffalo Creek or the I-40 Business Loop bridge over Liberty Street?  Is the Yadkin River bridge just so much longer? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 10, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
Well the Yadkin River Bridge is 1) longer as it crosses railroad tracks in addition to the river. 2) Narrower and the bridge is four lanes which is beginning to cause a choke point as I-85 is widened to six or eight lanes north and south of the bridge. 3) The other two bridges have been technically bypassed in both Winston and Greensboro.  AAA has yet to reduce the actual traffic count on the South Buffalo Creek bridge as a result of the southern half of the Greensboro Loop being built
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: shoptb1 on January 10, 2010, 11:50:58 AM
Makes sense....thanks for the explanation :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2010, 10:16:04 PM
If you're traveling through Wake Forest, North Carolina in the upcoming weeks, you may see some new signs.

The town is currently in the process of installing 15 new wayfinding signs. Road crews were setting anchors for the new signs today. The signs will be located on US 1A, NC 98 Business, along with local streets.

To see what the signs will look like head to the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/wake-forest-nc-to-install-wayfinding.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 11, 2010, 11:20:05 PM
Wow, that's kind of cool.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2010, 11:38:07 PM
Wow, that's kind of cool.

Raleigh already has wayfinding signs up.  Other towns in North Carolina are wanting to do the same.  It's a matter of raising funds or grants.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 26, 2010, 09:02:36 PM
Synopsis of articles on the resignation of Lanny Wilson from both the NC Transportation Board and his vice chairmanship on the NC Turnpike Authority Board.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/lanny-wilson-resigns-from-nc-board-of.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 26, 2010, 09:04:29 PM
Soon, perhaps within weeks, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority will release
the Environmental Impact Study on the Mid-Currituck Bridge. This is the next
big step needed to be completed before construction can begin on the
approximately $660 million project.

The study was to have been released last year, but the NCTA held back as they
wanted to include an 'Option B' design in the study. 'Option B', plans for
which was released to the public last October, would move toll booths closer to
US 158 and also change the location of Aydlett Road. Aydlett residents and
Currituck County Commissioners both oppose 'Option B'.

After the study is formally made public, the NCTA plans to hold another round of
public hearings on the results.

Story:
http://www.dailyadvance.com/news/currituck-mid-county-bridge-study-close-release-14351
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 27, 2010, 08:51:28 PM
Within the next 30 days, we'll know if North Carolina and South Carolina will
receive all, some, or none of the maximum $300 million of $1.5 billion highway
grant money that can be awarded to states for large highway or bridge projects.
The money is part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

States were allowed to submit applications to the federal government for these
funds. North Carolina's application is for the replacement of the aging I-85
bridges over the Yadkin River. South Carolina's request is to help construction
the first six miles of Interstate 73 in the state. (I-95 to US 501 near Latta.)

The awarding of the grant money should occur by February 17th. It either state
receives funding, construction on either project should begin later this year.

http://hpe.com/view/full_story/5638292/article-Yadkin-River-bridge-decision-may-come-next-month
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 27, 2010, 10:35:55 PM
I-85 Yadkin River bridge is deserving.  I-73 isn't.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 27, 2010, 10:52:01 PM
The future of the 1922 Wil-Cox Bridge over the Yadkin River is tied to the upcoming and hopeful construction of the I-85 Yadkin River Bridge Replacement Project.

Story:
http://www.the-dispatch.com/article/20100127/ARTICLES/100129923/1005/NEWS?p=1&tc=pg

Commentary:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/as-decision-on-yadkin-river-bridge.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 30, 2010, 03:14:15 PM
We've been documenting some of the concerns the town of Leland, NC has had over one of the routings of the proposed Cape Fear Skyway.  The northern routing option of the highway runs the closest to the town.

Leland Mayor, Walter Futch, has publicly come out against the highway.  He's stated that if the northern routing was built it would separate his town.

Leland's view is contrary to Brunswick County Commissioners, who on January 19th passed a resolution in support of the northern route.

The town has sent to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority 16 pages of questions in regards to the highway - from financing to routing to economic impacts.  Futch said he will not consider changing his mind until the NCTA answers the 16 page questionnaire.

The questionnaire can be found here:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/assets/pdf/WM19411122.PDF

The story is here:
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100122/ARTICLES/100129884?p=2&tc=pg

My commentary on some of the more odd questions is here:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/town-of-leland-has-numerous.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 08, 2010, 11:05:10 AM
There are new I-85 NC shields at the ramps for Exit 212 in Henderson.  Didn't get to taking a photo of them on the way to Wintergreen, VA this weekend, but I may try later this month.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 30, 2010, 11:31:44 PM
The days of 'Inner' and 'Outer' 440 are no more - I-440 has officially (at least to NCDOT) been removed from the southern half (or it's multiplex of I-40) of the Raleigh Beltline. 

http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/7323149/

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 10, 2010, 02:02:41 PM
The 86 year old Wil-Cox Bridge was recently closed due to safety concerns from a recent inspection.

http://www.salisburypost.com/News/040910-bridge-wilcox-bridge-at-river-closed
Title: NCTA releases Mid-Currituck Bridge Draft EIS
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 11, 2010, 11:30:43 AM
On March 31st, the North Carolina Turnpike Authority released their Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and recommended alternative for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.

The NCTA has recommended alternative MCB4 - which will build the bridge from US 158 Aydlett eastwards to NC 12 in Corolla.  Although the preferred alternative has been selected, NCTA has yet to decide on the location for the eastern terminus of the bridge or the location of the toll booths on the Aydlett side of the bridge.

The Turnpike Authority will hold public hearings on the bridge in May.

More detail on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/ncta-releases-mid-currituck-bridge.html

And the NCTA DEIS can be found here:
http://www.ncturnpike.org/pdf/Mid-Currituck%20Bridge%20DEIS.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on April 14, 2010, 02:19:22 PM
Isn't the I-73/I-74 to be rerouted via High Point across US 311? It would connect to the US 220 near Randleman. But what number does the Randleman - Greensboro section get? Just US 220?

The 2009 RandMcNally map says I-40 is still taking the southern bypass. I guess they aren't sure either.

I-74 would exit 220 near Randleman and go west along the High Point Bypass.   I-73 would stay on 220 north to the Greensboro loop (Exit 122 of the current I-85 Bypass), where it then merges (breifly) with I-85 to go west along the loop around the SW side of town.  Due to the unique interchange designs and use of C-D roads, I-73 and I-85 never actually share the same roadway, just the R/W.  I-85, which leaves the loop and goes south toward Charlotte at Exit 121, is on the inner lanes, and I-73 is on the outer lanes.  The SW part of the Greensboro loop between I-85 and I-40 is signed as I-73 (also cosigned with US 421) and uses exit numbers and mileposts for I-73.  I-73 disappears at the I-40 interchange, but it is scheduled to continue north to Bryan Blvd., where it will exit the Greensboro loop onto a new freeway alignment that will follow NC 68 and then US 220 to VA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 14, 2010, 06:12:29 PM
I would guess that the I-74 interchange with US 220 in Randolph County (Randleman) is where the existing southern terminus of US 311 is at US 220.  I say that because there is an END I-74 sign at that interchange.

I-40 is now more or less permanently routed along its old alignment in Greensboro.  Where the exit numbers changed from I-85's to Business I-85 in 2004, they changed in early 2009 to I-40's mileposts.  The old US 220 interchange (back in the 70's) is now...Exit 220 on both I-40 and Bus I-85N, though the left-hand exit from I-40 East is closed for right now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 14, 2010, 06:26:11 PM
I would guess that the I-74 interchange with US 220 in Randolph County (Randleman) is where the existing southern terminus of US 311 is at US 220.  I say that because there is an END I-74 sign at that interchange.

I-40 is now more or less permanently routed along its old alignment in Greensboro.  Where the exit numbers changed from I-85's to Business I-85 in 2004, they changed in early 2009 to I-40's mileposts.  The old US 220 interchange (back in the 70's) is now...Exit 220 on both I-40 and Bus I-85N, though the left-hand exit from I-40 East is closed for right now.

It will be near there.   Bob pretty much has it covered...
http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg7.html

He just recently took a trip to check on progress and it's up on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/04/april-i-74us-311-freeway-progress.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 31, 2010, 10:38:28 PM
Asheville has some unique wayfinding signs:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/05/asheville-wayfinding-signs.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2010, 11:11:37 PM
The Triangle Business Journal reports that NCDOT will let for bid in February 2011 the four mile US 401 Roleseville Bypass project.  The bid is expected to come in at about $35.6 million and take about two years to complete. 

This project is the second major US 401 project in Northern Wake County that will take place in the early part of this decade.  Currently, a project to widen over two miles of US 401 to four lanes is taking place north of Ligon Mill Road.  That project, funded with dollars from the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, should be completed in late 2011.

Story: http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/stories/2010/06/14/story11.html?b=1276488000^3486821&s=industry&i=commercial_real_estate
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 29, 2010, 07:46:14 PM
20 years ago today, on June 29, 1989, Interstate 40 was officially completed within the state of North Carolina.  A 122 mile extension of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington that took nearly 20 years to put together at a cost of $417 million was finally completed.

The Wilmington Star-News has a great article marking the 20th anniversary and some of the political battles fought for completion of the road.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100628/ARTICLES/100629689/1092/ARTICLES?p=1&tc=pg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 28, 2010, 08:49:01 AM
WRAL has a nice two plus minute video on the 20 year anniversary of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington.  It includes footage from the opening and I-40 from the late 80s and 1990.

http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/travel/video/8045601/
Title: Misspelled sign on I-277 will be fixed
Post by: Alex on September 01, 2010, 02:09:51 AM
Misspelled sign on I-277 will be fixed (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html)

The article includes a photo of the misspelling.

Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation says fixing a misspelled sign on Interstate 277 will not cost taxpayers any money.

NCDOT crews say the sign manufacturer made the mistake, reversing the 'd' and 'n' in the word "Independence."

NewsChannel 36 cameras caught the spelling error on Monday and NCDOT hopes to put up a temporary fix for the sign by Tuesday evening.

You can see the sign if you are driving eastbound on I-277 toward Independence Boulevard.

Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/08/31/1658010/misspelled-sign-on-i-277-will.html#ixzz0yFtxxSyq
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on September 01, 2010, 12:46:52 PM
What galls me is that we're spending a small fortune ugprading signage to these new specifications and no one is checking them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2010, 12:24:55 PM
NC 90's Western Terminus, perhaps the most isolated in the state, in Edgemont now signed:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/nc-90s-east-end-now-signed-and-paved.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 24, 2010, 12:02:35 PM
The $50 million Charlotte I-77 HOT Lane project was not one of the TIGER II award recipients earlier this month, leaving funding for the project in jeopardy.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/24/1779920/i-77-hot-lanes-lose-funding.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 26, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
NCDOT considers building their second Diverging Diamond Interchange at US 74/76 @ NC 133 in Leland.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/could-diverging-diamond-interchange-be.html

The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 27, 2010, 12:39:12 AM
The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.

Hmm, I think I'll need to check that out the next time I'm heading towards Florida on I-77. :nod:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 27, 2010, 10:22:43 AM
NCDOT considers building their second Diverging Diamond Interchange at US 74/76 @ NC 133 in Leland.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/could-diverging-diamond-interchange-be.html

The first is currently under construction at I-77 Exit 28 in Mecklenburg County.

A comment on the blog notes that their are a total of seven DDI's in North Carolina being considered, in design, or under construction.  Two are on I-85 in Concord, another on I-40 in Kernersville, and I-95 in Lumberton.  Most have a 2012-2014 window for completion.

So there is actually a race to see which will be the first open DDI here in North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 17, 2010, 10:53:54 PM
When the Southwestern corner of Interstate 485 in Mecklenburg County was opened in October 2004, some wondered what was going on with the unbuilt interchange between Wilkinson Blvd (US 29/74 - Exit 9) and NC 160 (Exit 4).


The diamond interchange with Garrison Road was clearly graded, but there was no asphalt, no concrete, no signs, nothing.  Well six years after the six lane I-485 was opened to traffic, there's construction activity going on at this 'ghost interchange'.


NCDOT has recently awarded a $1.2 contract to Boggs Paving to complete the grade work and pave the interchange ramps for what will be Exit 6 or 7.  The new interchange which will give additional access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport will be a 'ghost' no more in June 2011.

Story: http://mecktimes.com/news/2010/11/01/work-begins-on-i-485garrison-road-interchange/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on November 17, 2010, 11:50:16 PM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on November 18, 2010, 09:59:05 AM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 18, 2010, 10:03:22 AM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.

I haven't had a chance to head "home" to Gaston County in awhile.  We're planning on going down to Charlotte for a Checkers game in the winter so hopefully I'll get to check out the changes to 485.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on November 18, 2010, 02:48:52 PM
Wonder what will happen to a seeming phantom interchange between NC 16 and NC 24 in the Northwest corner.
That is another future interchange with Oakdale Road. It was graded when the highway was built, just like Garrison.

I haven't had a chance to head "home" to Gaston County in awhile.  We're planning on going down to Charlotte for a Checkers game in the winter so hopefully I'll get to check out the changes to 485.

Maybe I can meet up with you for that one!  If it's in January or February, I'll be in Columbia full time by then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2011, 12:40:45 PM
Just received confirmation from NCDOT via twitter (yeah I know) that the first phase of the Goldsboro Bypass will open by the end of the week.  The Goldsboro Bypass will be the rebirth of NC 44 after nearly 20 years off the map.  But the NC 44 designation will not last entirely too long as when the entire bypass is completed - US 70 will move on to the new freeway.

I have to be in Charlotte tomorrow but will most likely be able to get photos when the road opens.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on December 13, 2011, 04:54:06 PM
When is the full bypass supposed to open? I'd like to see an NC 44 while one exists.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 13, 2011, 05:34:31 PM
Ramp configurations can be seen on Bing aerials, and therefore have been added to OSM: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=35.42109&lon=-77.96343&zoom=15&layers=M
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on December 13, 2011, 06:39:46 PM
I found an NCDOT proposal of the full bypass, and compared it with NE2's link. Looks like NC 44's going to be with us for a little while.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2011, 06:47:01 PM
It's a good 5-7 years at a minimum before the entire bypass is open.  It is being built in three stages...the next stage will continue East and rejoin the existing US 70 near LaGrange.  This is currently out to bid and it appears will be awarded next spring.  This is the most lengthy part (nearly 11 miles) as it combines segments BB and C.  I could see US 70 being routed on the bypass and down 795 to the existing US 70 at that point.

The final stage goes west from 795 to current US 70 somewhere near NC 581.

Here's an NCDOT schematic of the bypass.

http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/R2554.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 16, 2011, 12:52:24 PM
The rebirth of NC 44 is official.  The new road opened sometime this morning.  Drove it about an hour ago, and will have photos and such up over the weekend.

One thing that was interesting, first time I saw California style "Freeway Entrance" signs - at the US 117 ramps to get onto the new freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 16, 2011, 09:21:45 PM
The rebirth of NC 44 is official.  The new road opened sometime this morning.  Drove it about an hour ago, and will have photos and such up over the weekend.

One thing that was interesting, first time I saw California style "Freeway Entrance" signs - at the US 117 ramps to get onto the new freeway.

Curious, but do the exits have exit numbers?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2011, 09:37:45 AM
Yes they have exit numbers based off of US 70's mileage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2011, 09:38:39 AM
Photos and write up of the new bypass are on the blog:
http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2011/12/nc-44-is-back.html

Flickr set of the bypass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/sets/72157628457432307/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: J N Winkler on December 20, 2011, 01:04:42 PM
Interesting article about NCDOT's problems with the new Davis-Bacon prevailing wage determination for North Carolina:

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/16744617/article-Wage-dispute-delays-bids-on-I-40-bridge?instance=homefirstleft

This dispute has already resulted in two monthly lettings being rolled over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on December 20, 2011, 07:37:52 PM
Durham has some of highest taxes in NC and some of the worst roads.  This is what happens when crooked politicans are given the task of building roads.  85 took the better part of a decade to reconstruct but 40 near Raleigh only took about 3 years.

I live only a mile or two from where they plan the bridge.  It'll take them 5 years to build it.  A job that normal would take 2, all because contractors get kickbacks from their buddies in NCDOT.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 21, 2011, 07:33:19 AM
State works on N.C. 12 plans (http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/12/16/1713798/state-works-on-nc-12-plans.html)

Quote
Environmental regulators meeting Thursday in Raleigh ruled out some of the state Department of Transportation's ideas for protecting N.C. 12 from storm damage, but they agreed to consider elevating parts of the Outer Banks road on long bridges.

Quote
Concerned about harm to the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge south of the N.C. 12 bridge over Oregon Inlet, the state and federal agencies vetoed options to protect the highway with heavy beach renourishment and dune construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 29, 2011, 09:49:23 AM
Just a quick note from a trip last night to Fayetteville.  Construction to extend I-295 west of US 401 towards base is underway.  Clearing is being done west of the US 401/Future 295 interchange and a crane is in place for early work to build the bridge carrying I-295 over 401.

Here are the two most recent articles on the Outer loop:
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/11/23/1137855?sac=Local
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2011/11/17/1138004?sac=Local
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 27, 2012, 05:15:45 PM
News and Observer: I-95 upgrade plans unfold (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/21/1793961/i-95-upgrade-plans-unfold.html)

[Emphasis added below]

Quote
The Department of Transportation says it wants to get moving on improvements to Interstate 95, starting in 2016 with a project to add lanes along 60 busy miles between Interstate 40 in Johnston County south to Lumberton. The state expects to join Virginia in winning federal permission to pay for I-95 improvements by collecting tolls. A long-range plan is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 31, 2012, 09:50:16 AM
This is only the beginning, I see more potential for this, I-85 will probably be the next cadidate.

News and Observer: I-95 upgrade plans unfold (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/21/1793961/i-95-upgrade-plans-unfold.html)

[Emphasis added below]

Quote
The Department of Transportation says it wants to get moving on improvements to Interstate 95, starting in 2016 with a project to add lanes along 60 busy miles between Interstate 40 in Johnston County south to Lumberton. The state expects to join Virginia in winning federal permission to pay for I-95 improvements by collecting tolls. A long-range plan is estimated to cost $4.4 billion.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 31, 2012, 10:57:22 AM
Not unless/until Congress expands the pilot project allowing it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 08, 2012, 04:44:54 AM
When the Southwestern corner of Interstate 485 in Mecklenburg County was opened in October 2004, some wondered what was going on with the unbuilt interchange between Wilkinson Blvd (US 29/74 - Exit 9) and NC 160 (Exit 4).


The diamond interchange with Garrison Road was clearly graded, but there was no asphalt, no concrete, no signs, nothing.  Well six years after the six lane I-485 was opened to traffic, there's construction activity going on at this 'ghost interchange'.


NCDOT has recently awarded a $1.2 contract to Boggs Paving to complete the grade work and pave the interchange ramps for what will be Exit 6 or 7.  The new interchange which will give additional access to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport will be a 'ghost' no more in June 2011.

Story: http://mecktimes.com/news/2010/11/01/work-begins-on-i-485garrison-road-interchange/

And that interchange is now opened.  Couldn't find a single news article that mentioned the opening of the new interchange.  However, I did find two other forums that mention the interchange opened.  Seems it opened in near the end of July '11.
http://www.steelecreekresidents.org/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=113
http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/852831-i-485-mystery-exit-near-berewick.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 09, 2012, 09:56:24 AM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 09, 2012, 01:43:07 PM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?

Here is a link to the NCDOT site:

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/charlotteouterloop/

They are saying 2014 for the 485/85 completion
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 09, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
More on possible I-95 tolls from WRAL-TV 5: NCDOT considering tolls for I-95; public feedback encouraged (http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/10694965/)

Video report from WRAL here (http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/10695538/).

Post Merge: February 09, 2012, 05:06:36 PM
Not unless/until Congress expands the pilot project allowing it.

As understand it, there are "slots" still available for states wanting to impose tolls "free" Interstates, and North Carolina is making application to use one of them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 09, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
I'm aware of that.  I was replying to the comment goobnav made about I-85 being "the next candidate".  Unless/until Congress expands the program, the limit is 1 per state and 3 total...Virginia (I-95) and Missouri (I-70) (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm) already have 2 of the 3 slots taken.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 09, 2012, 07:36:14 PM
Froggie,

VA is also working on getting 85 tolled at the border going North from NC to VA.

Here is a link:

http://nbc12.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/mcdonnell-unveils-plans-to-toll-i-95/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 09, 2012, 09:14:20 PM
They say that the Tar Heel State is king when it comes to strange-looking interchanges! With the coming diverging diamonds, I-77 in the Charlotte area alone will just add on to its myriad of unusual exits, joining the already-existing ones for I-85 and I-277 on both ends.

Also, what's the progress on that I-85/I-485 interchange on the northeast side?

Here is a link to the NCDOT site:

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/charlotteouterloop/

They are saying 2014 for the 485/85 completion
Just saw one of the videos tracing the final route of I-485. At the end of the video, there's a stack interchange at I-85, but now that junction will become a turbine instead, correct?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 09, 2012, 10:09:50 PM
Quote
Froggie,

VA is also working on getting 85 tolled at the border going North from NC to VA.

However, the application VDOT submitted is only for I-95, as current Federal law prohibits Virginia from applying for 2 interstates.  This is why they dropped the plan to toll I-81 so they could shift that "slot" to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2012, 10:12:27 PM
Logically they should be allowed to submit I-85 and I-95 north of I-85 as one continuous route. But politics isn't logical.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 09, 2012, 10:56:10 PM
Can they bring back the tolls they once had on the Turnpike? :P
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on February 09, 2012, 11:58:33 PM
I-85 at the VA/NC border would be pretty easy to shunpike, with the northernmost NC exit (US 1/401) less than a mile from the border.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 10, 2012, 10:16:30 AM
I-85 at the VA/NC border would be pretty easy to shunpike, with the northernmost NC exit (US 1/401) less than a mile from the border.

Agreed.  There is also 903 that is not too far from there and takes you right back to VA or NC.  A little circuitious but another alternative.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2012, 10:04:25 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 10:15:25 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)


Read the article yesterday, the map on paper is perfect to show just how to avoid and take US 301 to get back on with no tolls.  This is a disaster waiting to happen.  If they get this and VA does not toll I-85 the traffic will use it as an alternate and Triangle traffic will become worse than it is now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 13, 2012, 11:24:10 AM
News and Observer: Plan fights evasion of I-95 toll in North Carolina (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/12/1848361/plan-fights-toll-evasion.html)


Read the article yesterday, the map on paper is perfect to show just how to avoid and take US 301 to get back on with no tolls.  This is a disaster waiting to happen.  If they get this and VA does not toll I-85 the traffic will use it as an alternate and Triangle traffic will become worse than it is now.

I-85 serves a very different travel market from I-95, and I do not believe that much traffic will divert from 95 to 85, even if 95 were to be tolled across all of North Carolina.

Are you suggesting that trips will divert down I-85 at Petersburg, Va. and then continue south on U.S. 1 in the direction of Raleigh?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 12:34:36 PM
Yes.  Plus I-540, US-64 to get out to the Eastern part of the state from Raleigh or US-1 South to US 74(I-74) or I-73 when completed in SC.  Don't forget the toll is supposed to be $19.20 and that is with NC QuickPass or E-ZPass, with gas prices going up, truckers will take a slighty about 45 to 60 mile detour to save money.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 13, 2012, 12:49:30 PM
People who are willing to put a modicum of thought into routes might well take I-85 to save on tolls. The distance from my house to my sister-in-law's house in Florida is 859 miles if I do a straight shot down I-95 (except for taking I-295 around Richmond). If I jump off onto I-85, then take US-1 south to Raleigh, then take the Beltline around the east side of town to pick up I-40 and then return to I-95 at Benson, the trip becomes a whole three miles longer (862 miles) and I'd have cut off about half to two-thirds of I-95 through North Carolina. There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

If instead I take US-1 on down through Sanford and the Pinehurst area and return to I-95 in South Carolina (I've never actually done this yet), the trip becomes 870 miles. Time-wise I'm sure it's a good bit longer due to traffic, red lights, and lower speed limits; Google Maps estimates an extra 50 minutes. But if you're a truck driver or someone who drives on that road regularly, the extra time might well be worth it, given that the tolls for trucks are almost always higher than they are for cars. I could see truck drivers peeling off I-95 at the I-74 interchange near Lumberton to hook west to US-1. They'd still incur a toll, but it would be relatively minimal.

The other routes via US-29 or I-77 aren't really great options, especially for truckers, due to terrain or the additional distance. Saving on a toll becomes a false economy if you burn enough fuel that it winds up costing the same amount. You have to be a really adamant anti-toll zealot to be willing to do that (I'm not).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 13, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
People who are willing to put a modicum of thought into routes might well take I-85 to save on tolls. The distance from my house to my sister-in-law's house in Florida is 859 miles if I do a straight shot down I-95 (except for taking I-295 around Richmond). If I jump off onto I-85, then take US-1 south to Raleigh, then take the Beltline around the east side of town to pick up I-40 and then return to I-95 at Benson, the trip becomes a whole three miles longer (862 miles) and I'd have cut off about half to two-thirds of I-95 through North Carolina. There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

If instead I take US-1 on down through Sanford and the Pinehurst area and return to I-95 in South Carolina (I've never actually done this yet), the trip becomes 870 miles. Time-wise I'm sure it's a good bit longer due to traffic, red lights, and lower speed limits; Google Maps estimates an extra 50 minutes. But if you're a truck driver or someone who drives on that road regularly, the extra time might well be worth it, given that the tolls for trucks are almost always higher than they are for cars. I could see truck drivers peeling off I-95 at the I-74 interchange near Lumberton to hook west to US-1. They'd still incur a toll, but it would be relatively minimal.

The other routes via US-29 or I-77 aren't really great options, especially for truckers, due to terrain or the additional distance. Saving on a toll becomes a false economy if you burn enough fuel that it winds up costing the same amount. You have to be a really adamant anti-toll zealot to be willing to do that (I'm not).

Per the article, NCDOT estimates that 20 to 25% will try to avoid the tolls but, they are using that to justify higher cost of toll.  The PA Turnpike is $30.17 for the 359 miles of the mainline, I-76 & 276, I-95 in NC is half the distance, 181 miles and only $10 less?  The truckers are already to protest this and I am sure their Teamster brothers will join soon.  This is going to be a fun thing to see played out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 13, 2012, 05:44:12 PM
Quote
There's a slight time penalty, but it's not severe.

Depends on what time you hit Wake Forest.  I'd say it's a moderate time penalty with the lights and sprawl between Wake Forest and the Beltline.

Quote
Per the article, NCDOT estimates that 20 to 25% will try to avoid the tolls but, they are using that to justify higher cost of toll.  The PA Turnpike is $30.17 for the 359 miles of the mainline, I-76 & 276, I-95 in NC is half the distance, 181 miles and only $10 less?  The truckers are already to protest this and I am sure their Teamster brothers will join soon.  This is going to be a fun thing to see played out.

Well here's the problem:  if we don't get the money, we can't maintain the road, let alone widen it.  Trucks are getting off at a damn good rate anyway, given that the amount of damage they do to pavement is considerably more than 3-4 times that of cars.  We're living on borrowed time right now as it is with transportation funding....unless elected officials, not to mention the voters who vote them in, are willing to accept higher transportation taxes and/or tolls, the bottom WILL FALL OUT before too long, and we'll be at the point where we literally CAN'T maintain what we already have.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 14, 2012, 12:44:42 AM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on February 14, 2012, 04:09:35 PM
Just saw one of the videos tracing the final route of I-485. At the end of the video, there's a stack interchange at I-85, but now that junction will become a turbine instead, correct?

That stack is at I-77/I-485 on the south side of Charlotte. The turbine interchange will be at the northeast side of town, where 485 currently ends at I-85 in a trumpet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 14, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:

I have driven enough of 301 in N.C. to know that I would much rather pay the tolls for an improved I-95 across the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 15, 2012, 12:16:47 AM
I would much rather use other US highways or even state highways and traverse the state at my leisure. YMMV.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 15, 2012, 07:54:04 AM
I would much rather use other US highways or even state highways and traverse the state at my leisure. YMMV.

If I have the time, and the road is right for a leisurely trip, so would I.

In North Carolina, two routes that come to mind are N.C. 12 on the Outer Banks, and on the other side of the state, the Blue Ridge Parkway.

But driving from Maryland to South Carolina when time is limited (I make that trip somewhat frequently), I will take I-95 every time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 15, 2012, 09:39:49 AM
I'm fine with the tolls. I've driven all of I-95 and US 301 in NC. (:

I have driven enough of 301 in N.C. to know that I would much rather pay the tolls for an improved I-95 across the state.

I have driven all of US-301 through N.C. on one trip, and that is interesting once in a while, but I would much rather pay a toll on an improved I-95.  It needs at least 3 lanes each way in its entirety.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 15, 2012, 09:47:02 AM
I think that they're figuring for those who make the trip rarely (once or twice a year) the tolls won't be that much of an inconvenience-they'll just go ahead and pay it; but for those who use I-95 on a regular basis for travel may be put out enough to do long-distance shunpiking (not just truckers...all those boys in the 82nd ABN/1st COSCOM at Ft. Bragg who use I-95 to travel to visit family out of state are NOT going to be happy, nor will the Marines at Cherry Point or Camp Lejeune).

And $19.20?  No, no...I could see $12-15 to start, but not close to $20 a pop...and no SunPass interoperability?  That's gonna yank the snowbirds' chain...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 10:10:27 AM
I tend to agree that I'd probably pay the toll, or I might just use the I-85-->Raleigh-->I-40 route to cut off part of it. (With respect to froggie's point about when you hit Wake Forest, I've never encountered traffic issues there and I can only speak from my own experience in terms of time. But I have no doubt traffic issues can happen there, just as they can around Raleigh....I especially remember how bad it was when the Beltline was still being widened between Wade and Glenwood Avenues. I worked off Millbrook Road at the time and used Wake Forest Road-->Beltline-->Wade Avenue-->I-40-->Durham Freeway for my commute.) I'm kind of in the same camp as cpzilliacus: 95% of my driving on I-95 through North Carolina is on trips to or from Florida to visit relatives and the idea of a leisurely detour doesn't really work–especially from my wife's point of view–because it means sacrificing the time in Florida. The other thing is, quite frankly, I get fed up rather quickly with traffic lights and slow local drivers when I'm on a longer trip.

From the standpoint of the principle behind the thing I don't object much to tolls when they're used to finance a new road or major improvements in lieu of other forms of financing. For example, it's well-known that the New Jersey Turnpike doesn't get any gas tax funding and relies on tolls and service area revenue. From my point of view, that's a great example of capitalism at its finest: If you drive on the road, you help pay for it; if you don't drive on the road, you don't pay for it. I assume I-95 in North Carolina, or in Virginia under the toll proposal here, wouldn't go quite that far on the financing, as I assume the state portion of the gas tax would still partially fund the road under the existing formula. The point made in the article in the first post in this thread about how lots of drivers (myself included) don't stop in North Carolina to buy gas is a valid concern (in my case, it's not due to price; it's due to vehicle range–I can get at least to Florence before I have to think about filling the tank) and with the federal portion of the gas tax becoming increasingly inadequate, it is important for states to find other methods of financing these things. I-95 desperately needs upgrading across BOTH of the Carolinas. I can stomach a toll a couple of times a year if the end result is a major improvement. I should also note that my opinion on this is also based on my understanding that federal approval to toll Interstates in this fashion is conditioned in part on the states' commitment not to use the toll revenue for anything other than improvements to, or maintenance of, the tolled road–so, in this example, toll revenue from I-95 couldn't be used to improve I-26 or to complete I-74. I'm not a huge fan of paying a toll that will finance some far-away roads I'll never use, and to me the sort of thing Delaware does on I-95 is a big middle-finger gesture to all the out-of-staters.

With all that said, back when I lived in North Carolina I sometimes found myself wondering if the state was perhaps too focused on building new roads instead of maintaining what they already had. I recall the state government making a big deal about their commitment to bringing a four-lane highway within some relatively small distance of every state resident. I remember thinking that I-85 from Durham to the Virginia state line, and I-95 around Lumberton in particular, was in such horrible shape that they needed to repair those before trying to build anything else. I don't spend nearly as much time down there now, so I don't know whether the same is still true as a general matter, but the only real change I've seen on I-95 since August of 1995 was the posting of 70-mph speed limits the following summer.


I think that they're figuring for those who make the trip rarely (once or twice a year) the tolls won't be that much of an inconvenience-they'll just go ahead and pay it; but for those who use I-95 on a regular basis for travel may be put out enough to do long-distance shunpiking (not just truckers...all those boys in the 82nd ABN/1st COSCOM at Ft. Bragg who use I-95 to travel to visit family out of state are NOT going to be happy, nor will the Marines at Cherry Point or Camp Lejeune).

And $19.20?  No, no...I could see $12-15 to start, but not close to $20 a pop...and no SunPass interoperability?  That's gonna yank the snowbirds' chain...

Regarding SunPass, I suspect most of the snowbirds have both E-ZPass and SunPass devices, so that likely won't pose much of an issue.

The article in the first post makes it sound to me like they're trying to figure out a way to make this somewhat similar–note I said "somewhat"–to the way the Maine Turnpike allows reasonably long toll-free drives for Maine residents while tagging the out-of-staters with the full toll. The toll-free distances won't be nearly as long on North Carolina's road, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 15, 2012, 11:05:21 AM
$19.20 for the entire stretch will lead me to shunpike the vast majority of it. I might drive the completed eight-lane or whatever stretch just to see it once, but that would be it. From far enough away, Florida/Gulf Coast, etc., alternate routes are more viable to bypass stiff tolls. Further more, if Virginia tolled theirs at an equally high rate, the I-77/81 corridors, even with all the trucks, would become more appealing, with the added bonus of avoiding the congestion of DC by staying on I-81 to I-70 to make the turn eastward.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 11:19:18 AM
$19.20 for the entire stretch will lead me to shunpike the vast majority of it. I might drive the completed eight-lane or whatever stretch just to see it once, but that would be it. From far enough away, Florida/Gulf Coast, etc., alternate routes are more viable to bypass stiff tolls. Further more, if Virginia tolled theirs at an equally high rate, the I-77/81 corridors, even with all the trucks, would become more appealing, with the added bonus of avoiding the congestion of DC by staying on I-81 to I-70 to make the turn eastward.

Valid point about Virginia not having said anything yet about the rates. I wasn't thinking about that when I made my comments and it does indeed change my thought process, though I imagine that as a DC-area resident I'd probably opt for US-29 south to Greensboro and then either continue straight down US-220 to Rockingham or else head down to Charlotte to take I-77 and I-26. To me going around via Atlanta simply isn't worth it going to or from Florida unless there is a SERIOUS problem closer to the coast–it adds at least 200 miles, depending where I'm headed and which road I use to get to Atlanta, and the traffic around there can be maddening.

Your comment about the I-77/I-81 route does prompt me to wonder whether an unintended consequence of the tolling plans might well be to make I-81 through Virginia just flat-out intolerable. It's pretty close as it is. In my view the problem isn't the trucks per se, it's the large number of idiot car drivers who can't seem to deal with the trucks in a semi-rational manner or who gum up the left lane by trying to pass the trucks without increasing speed. I think a lot of truck drivers (not all, but a lot) tend to be among the most cooperative drivers out there if you try to work with them because they know the limitations of their vehicles and they know how it can be frustrating to get stuck behind them, but I think your average car driver has no concept of the issues truckers face on mountainous highways and of the importance of maintaining sufficient momentum when the truck approaches an uphill grade. Also, your average car driver doesn't have a clue about how much harder it is for truckers to see what's behind them and of how useful all the various flashing-your-lights signals are for truck drivers. I've found over the years that when I flash my lights to signal to them in the same way they do, they tend to acknowledge it and to move back out of the way more promptly than they might otherwise.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that about 10 years ago or so there was a PPTA proposal to widen I-81 to a quad-carriageway with the truck lanes being trucks and buses only (unlike the New Jersey Turnpike) and with the truck carriageway being subject to a toll. The deal never came to fruition in part because the bidder wanted a non-compete clause that would have prohibited any improvements to roads that could be reasonable shunpike routes (including US-29), but I wonder if tolling I-95 might well result in the I-81 proposals being resurrected in a different form. People in Virginia tend to focus on I-95 because it's the East Coast's main thru route, but in Virginia I-81 really needs improvements a lot more than I-95 does.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 15, 2012, 03:01:53 PM
While vastly out of date - http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-081.html, I was aware of the tolling I-81 Truck lane concept. Need to add that to the queue to update...

You make a good point about the cars passing trucks, but its a two-fold problem. Not only is it a pain when one car lollygags in the left-hand lane at a mile or two per hour faster than the adjacent truck, but trucks are not known to pass each other with break neck speeds either. Often is the case on I-81 or I-77, with the hilly nature of both roads, where one truck will take one to two miles to complete a pass. Meanwhile the lemming queue of passenger cars forms behind the left-hand truck, creating moving bottlenecks. Perhaps additional truck passing lanes may be needed here and there to compensate should either freeway gain a significant amount of traffic.

Being based out of the DC area, it would be hard to avoid the bulk of tolls on the basis of time expenditure.


Valid point about Virginia not having said anything yet about the rates. I wasn't thinking about that when I made my comments and it does indeed change my thought process, though I imagine that as a DC-area resident I'd probably opt for US-29 south to Greensboro and then either continue straight down US-220 to Rockingham or else head down to Charlotte to take I-77 and I-26. To me going around via Atlanta simply isn't worth it going to or from Florida unless there is a SERIOUS problem closer to the coast–it adds at least 200 miles, depending where I'm headed and which road I use to get to Atlanta, and the traffic around there can be maddening.

Your comment about the I-77/I-81 route does prompt me to wonder whether an unintended consequence of the tolling plans might well be to make I-81 through Virginia just flat-out intolerable. It's pretty close as it is. In my view the problem isn't the trucks per se, it's the large number of idiot car drivers who can't seem to deal with the trucks in a semi-rational manner or who gum up the left lane by trying to pass the trucks without increasing speed. I think a lot of truck drivers (not all, but a lot) tend to be among the most cooperative drivers out there if you try to work with them because they know the limitations of their vehicles and they know how it can be frustrating to get stuck behind them, but I think your average car driver has no concept of the issues truckers face on mountainous highways and of the importance of maintaining sufficient momentum when the truck approaches an uphill grade. Also, your average car driver doesn't have a clue about how much harder it is for truckers to see what's behind them and of how useful all the various flashing-your-lights signals are for truck drivers. I've found over the years that when I flash my lights to signal to them in the same way they do, they tend to acknowledge it and to move back out of the way more promptly than they might otherwise.

Anyway, I'm sure you know that about 10 years ago or so there was a PPTA proposal to widen I-81 to a quad-carriageway with the truck lanes being trucks and buses only (unlike the New Jersey Turnpike) and with the truck carriageway being subject to a toll. The deal never came to fruition in part because the bidder wanted a non-compete clause that would have prohibited any improvements to roads that could be reasonable shunpike routes (including US-29), but I wonder if tolling I-95 might well result in the I-81 proposals being resurrected in a different form. People in Virginia tend to focus on I-95 because it's the East Coast's main thru route, but in Virginia I-81 really needs improvements a lot more than I-95 does.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 15, 2012, 03:11:52 PM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 15, 2012, 03:44:12 PM
....

Being based out of the DC area, it would be hard to avoid the bulk of tolls on the basis of time expenditure.

For me, the main thing is that going too far out of the way runs up against a low WAF: Wife Acceptance Factor. (The time I made a wrong turn in Colorado on the way back from a football trip to the University of Wyoming and took us 125 miles out of our way did NOT go over well with her....I enjoyed the scenery and seeing someplace new, but she quickly got sick of being in the car.) Like most of us on this forum, I'm always happy to go a different way just for the sake of the drive, as long as it's within reason of course, and I'll do up to about 100 extra miles. But my wife prefers just to get where we're going unless there's a traffic issue or some such.

I'll certainly concede that if we have to be somewhere by a particular time I'll almost always opt for the most direct route, even if the "particular time" is the following day. I suppose factors such as night driving at the end of a long day's drive factor in as well–I find that headlight glare bothers me more now than it did when I was in my 20s, and if I drive from home to Florida during the winter it means I hit Florida right around sunset and the lack of a wide median on I-95 down there makes the headlight glare all the more noticeable.

I think in the end most people will accept the tolls. The same thing happened with the Dulles Toll Road here in Fairfax County. Back when it opened in the mid-1980s everybody thought it was astoundingly expensive (max toll back then was 85¢ to go about 12 miles from the Beltway to the end of the road at VA-28), especially compared to the New Jersey Turnpike and other toll roads that were more familiar to everyone back then. But the alternate routes take so much longer that most people ultimately decided the toll was worth it. I'm sure I-95 tolling would be no different. I also expect a lot of people don't know of any other route–seriously! I'm always amazed at how many people think I-95 and the New Jersey Turnpike are the only route between DC and New York–and I think a lot of people would have a very serious bias against shunpiking via US-301 or other non-Interstate routes. (When I say "a lot of people" I mean the general public, not roadgeeks or people who drive for a living.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 15, 2012, 05:45:31 PM
With all that said, back when I lived in North Carolina I sometimes found myself wondering if the state was perhaps too focused on building new roads instead of maintaining what they already had. I recall the state government making a big deal about their commitment to bringing a four-lane highway within some relatively small distance of every state resident. I remember thinking that I-85 from Durham to the Virginia state line, and I-95 around Lumberton in particular, was in such horrible shape that they needed to repair those before trying to build anything else.

That section of I-85 was rebuilt a few years ago, its all fresh pavement now. VA and NC also resurfaced large portions of I-95 which I believe was funded by ARRA.

Coming from a state that has a perpetually broke transportation budget (but cheap gas tax), it amazes me how much road building NC is able to do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 16, 2012, 12:34:12 AM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...

What about the Tydings Bridge and the Delaware Turnpike?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 16, 2012, 03:11:53 AM
Well, if they push it then the next time I go home to Philly it's I-95>I-26>I-77>I-85>US 301>MD 5>I-495>I-95 for the win...

What about the Tydings Bridge and the Delaware Turnpike?

I can live with both, especially the Tydings since I only have to pay northbound (although since I've been on this forum and found out some of the Delaware Turnpike avoidance routes, I can bypass it too).  :biggrin: :nod:

But $20 through NC for God knows how long?  Especially if someone gets the bright idea to start using the tolls to do mass transit too? :ded: Nuh uh.

(Then again, I do live near Orlando and have a SunPass transponder, so you can take that with a dump truck of salt).   :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 18, 2012, 03:08:45 PM
According to TOLLROADSnews, USDOT/FHWA has allocated the one remaining "slot" in the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program to North Carolina for I-95:

USDOT allocates open toll slot to NC/I-95, stiffs RI/I-95, AZ/I-15 (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5766)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 18, 2012, 10:41:19 PM
According to real news sources, that's what I've heard as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on February 18, 2012, 11:08:28 PM
According to real news sources, that's what I've heard as well.

I think this is a real news source (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/nc-wins-federal-permission-for-i-95-check-your-drive-on-i-95-toll-map):

Quote
North Carolina won permission from the Federal Highway Administration Friday to collect tolls on Interstate 95, the state Department of Transportation said.
DOT is floating a $4.4 billion plan to overhaul all 182 miles of I-95, widening the four-lane expressway to six lanes -- and eight lanes on the busiest 50 miles. To pay for it, DOT wants to collect tolls from its drivers .... As a result, truckers (25 percent of all I-95 traffic) and out-of-state cars and trucks (55 percent) could actually end up paying more than their share of the tolls.
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.
When tolling starts in 2019, a car driving all the way between South Carolina and Virginia probably would be tolled $19.20, DOT says. Tolls for heavy trucks will be higher ....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 19, 2012, 11:09:52 PM
Here's the story from WRAL (http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/10747682/).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2012, 06:08:36 AM
North Carolina won permission from the Federal Highway Administration Friday to collect tolls on Interstate 95, the state Department of Transportation said.
DOT is floating a $4.4 billion plan to overhaul all 182 miles of I-95, widening the four-lane expressway to six lanes -- and eight lanes on the busiest 50 miles. To pay for it, DOT wants to collect tolls from its drivers .... As a result, truckers (25 percent of all I-95 traffic) and out-of-state cars and trucks (55 percent) could actually end up paying more than their share of the tolls.
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.
When tolling starts in 2019, a car driving all the way between South Carolina and Virginia probably would be tolled $19.20, DOT says. Tolls for heavy trucks will be higher ....


Car tolls of 11 cents per mile for 181 miles of historically untolled rural Interstate highway???

The public will massively oppose this scheme.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on February 20, 2012, 03:55:15 PM
So I decided to run some numbers here...$4.4B with a projected toll of $19.20 comes out to approximately 229.1 million trips needed to pay it off.
Divided by the best case 53,000 AADT, you have 4,323 days...nearly 12 YEARS of tolls.

And, of course, this does NOT exclude the possibility that those tolls won't rise OR that those tolls won't be dropped in 2030 (after all, they can always find OTHER needs that can be addressed using the cash flow).

Whee doggies, this is gonna get UG-LY...  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 20, 2012, 09:40:47 PM
The N.C. US-301 corridor was for the most part quite rural back before I-95 was built.  Nowadays there are tons of small town type development all along the N.C. I-95 corridor, which for the most part closely parallels US-301.  Then there are the long established US-301 cities of Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids.

Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2012, 11:07:57 PM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled. 

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 08:41:41 AM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled. 

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.

N.C. I-95 has far more local development and traffic than PA I-80 ... I don't think it would be feasible to let short trips be untolled.  That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on February 21, 2012, 09:21:51 AM
I think this is a real news source (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/nc-wins-federal-permission-for-i-95-check-your-drive-on-i-95-toll-map):
Quote
Check the attached Google map to see how this would affect you and your trips on I-95. Blue icons mark locations for 9 sets of electronic toll sensors on I-95.  Pink icons mark the nearest exits, before and after the sensors, where drivers going on or off I-95 also would pay tolls.
All other exits? Toll-free. And that's most of them.

I admittedly have not closely analyzed the map icons to see to what extent local traffic could realistically avoid the tolls, but I got the impression that NCDOT was at least making some type of effort to spare the locals.  Has anyone tried to figure out sensor avoidance routes yet?  :ninja:  
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

One of the few things that the Pennsylvania proposal to toll I-80 got right was to grant free passage to 4-wheeled vehicles passing their first toll point, so that relatively short trips on the road would not be tolled.  

With all-electronic tolling, this is relatively simple to implement.

N.C. I-95 has far more local development and traffic than PA I-80 ... I don't think it would be feasible to let short trips be untolled.

Using a travel demand forecasting model for I-95 traffic in North Carolina, it should be pretty easy for NCDOT or one of its consultants to develop a trip length frequency distribution for I-95 travel to determine that.  In fact, it's one of the basic steps in running a "four step" travel demand model, so they have probably already done it.

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

Quote
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.

Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 21, 2012, 09:46:39 AM
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.
Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.

No, I am basing the future on the changes that have occured since I-95 was built.  The corridor continues to develop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 09:50:44 AM
The N.C. US-301 corridor was for the most part quite rural back before I-95 was built.  Nowadays there are tons of small town type development all along the N.C. I-95 corridor, which for the most part closely parallels US-301.  Then there are the long established US-301 cities of Fayetteville, Wilson, Rocky Mount and Roanoke Rapids.

Meaning that a goodly portion of the N.C. I-95 traffic is local within N.C., local as in trips of 20 miles or less --- and while they may get some break on tolls, they are going to have to pay something in this scheme, and even with a 50% discount that is still 6 cents per mile, or $1.20 for a 20 mile trip.

I-95 traffic is more thru than local.  The local traffic is heaviest in the Dunn and Benson areas which there will not be any tolls.  Any other local (NC origin) traffic is going to be of some distance 40+ miles.  I.E. Raleigh to Fayetteville.  

US 301 would not be able to handle any toll avoidance traffic with the exception of Fayetteville (Business I-95), and Kenly to Rocky Mount.  Those are the only four lane sections of US 301.  Traffic is slow in Dunn, Benson, Smithfield/Selma, old 301 through Lumberton, Weldon, then throw in many of the 35 mph small town along the way.

Driving 301 compared to 95 throughout NC is a good 90 minutes or more of a drive.

It isn't going to get ugly as ya'll are making out to be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 09:54:49 AM
That local traffic and development will increase on a widened highway.
Are you buying in to the notion of "induced" demand for highway capacity?  "Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.

No, I am basing the future on the changes that have occured since I-95 was built.  The corridor continues to develop.

It has? Sure you aren't talking about I-40/85 or 85 from Charlotte to Durham?

People are leaving the eastern part of the state to move to Charlotte and Raleigh.  Just look at some of the unemployment numbers of the I-95 Counties and eastern North Carolina.  If development means compared to 1960 when the Fayetteville to Kenly stretch opened sure.  But compared to the rest of the state - or even the other interstates within the state- no way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 10:00:23 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Tolls for $4.5b work on NC/I-95 proposed in two phases (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5769)

Quote
Tolling and rebuild/capacity additions costing some $1.81b will start in the most urgent section 61 miles, 100km from NC211 at mile marker MM20 south of Fayetteville to MM81 at I-40. Phase 2 to begin after Phase 1 is  complete would see $2.63b of work on 20 miles south of Fayetteville to South Carolina and on 100 miles north of I-40 up to the Virginia line plus tolls started in those stretches.

Quote
Tolls per mile would be higher in the Phase 1 part with the higher traffic and greater roadwork (going to 8 lanes) plus more interchange improvements.

Quote
The toll scheme is for all-electronic toll points - a mix of multi-protocol transponder readers (E-ZPass, SunPass and NC brand 6Bs at least) and cameras for pay-by-mail. There will be nine mainline toll points and on 18 sets of outwards facing ramp pairs on  either side to get tolls on all but the short on and off trips in between. (see sketch plan nearby)

Quote
They've allowed $78m for the toll system - just under 2% of project cost.

Quote
Mainline gantries would be about 20 miles, 32km apart, three in the Phase 1 portion and six in the Phase 3.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 10:10:39 AM
Oh, I will be stopping by at the info session in Wilson tonight.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 21, 2012, 10:43:24 AM
"Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Doesn't make it false.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 21, 2012, 01:25:29 PM
"Induced" demand and "induced" traffic are standard arguments used (over and over and over again) by the anti-highway/anti-auto/anti-mobility industry to oppose increased highway capacity.
Doesn't make it false.

I believe that new highways (if they are "free" and uncongested) probably lead to longer trip lengths in areas that are experiencing growth in employment and resident population).  But as CanesFan27 correctly pointed out above, many counties near I-95 in North Carolina have been losing population.  And the availability of new highway capacity does not mean that it instantly fills up, especially if it is tolled (as NCDOT is proposing for I-95).

The lay source that's frequently cited on the subject of "induced" demand for highway capacity was a 1999 article about increased traffic on I-270 in Maryland by Alan Sipress in the Washington Post (online for free here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/traffic4.htm)). 

Sipress and his editors at the Post made a critical omission in that article. 

When  the travel demand forecasts were done as part of the studies that recommended widening I-270, the network assumptions included both an InterCounty Connector running east to I-95 (which at the time that the article was written, was in limbo) and a new crossing of the Potomac River to the west and south of I-270 to Northern Virginia.  Without those circumferential links, I-270 was going to fill to capacity much more quickly than the forecasts had predicted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 21, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
It's not going to get ugly - but Anti I-95 Tolling signs are already up. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/anti-i-95-tolling-signs-already-up-in.html

Weldon, NC photo taken today by Billy Riddle.  He's going to meet up with me at the info meeting in Wilson tonight.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 21, 2012, 04:36:48 PM
no state name on the shields.  I cannot respect that organization.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 21, 2012, 05:38:39 PM
....

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

....

I believe the Maine Turnpike is configured that way now (I last drove on it in 2008, but aside from a rate increase I think the setup is the same). There are three barrier tolls. At the entrances between the York and New Gloucester barriers you also pay $1.00 when you enter the Turnpike. Most exits, however, are not tolled, with a couple of exceptions–the two ends of I-295, as well as unsigned I-495, are tolled for both entry to and exit from the Turnpike. (The southern end of I-295 is the place where Maine residents all know to take Exit 45, the Maine Mall exit, instead of Exit 44 for I-295 because the former is not tolled while the latter carries a $1.00 toll. Half a mile east from Exit 45 you then enter I-295. It's even easier than shunpiking the Delaware Turnpike!) So essentially what it does is let local residents go a long way for a dollar while hitting out-of-staters with the barrier tolls plus another toll upon exit if they use the most popular tourist routes. I-95 in North Carolina is a much busier road than it is in Maine (though the portion in Maine is a much better road than most of North Carolina's, at least the part south of Portland at least), but I'm certain North Carolina could study the way Maine set it up and figure out some way to do something similar. They've plainly stated that they really want to sock the out-of-staters who pass through the state but never stop except perhaps at a rest area to take a leak.

Maine also gives E-ZPass customers a major discount if they use the Turnpike a lot. The plan is set up so that while out-of-staters are technically eligible, in practice they'll never qualify unless they commute to work in Maine from a residence in New Hampshire or Massachusetts. North Carolina could opt to do the same if enough residents push for it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2012, 10:51:27 PM
Some photos, notes, information, and commentary on the I-95 toll proposal from the Public Information Hearing that Billy Riddle and I attended in WIlson, NC on Tuesday.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-95-tolling-public-hearing-wilson-nc.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2012, 09:04:22 AM
....

You might recall that the Connecticut Turnpike (most of which is I-95) was once tolled with a system of barrier tolls, and the locations of the barriers were sited to allow significant local travel to take place without paying tolls.

....

I believe the Maine Turnpike is configured that way now (I last drove on it in 2008, but aside from a rate increase I think the setup is the same). There are three barrier tolls. At the entrances between the York and New Gloucester barriers you also pay $1.00 when you enter the Turnpike. Most exits, however, are not tolled, with a couple of exceptions–the two ends of I-295, as well as unsigned I-495, are tolled for both entry to and exit from the Turnpike. (The southern end of I-295 is the place where Maine residents all know to take Exit 45, the Maine Mall exit, instead of Exit 44 for I-295 because the former is not tolled while the latter carries a $1.00 toll. Half a mile east from Exit 45 you then enter I-295. It's even easier than shunpiking the Delaware Turnpike!) So essentially what it does is let local residents go a long way for a dollar while hitting out-of-staters with the barrier tolls plus another toll upon exit if they use the most popular tourist routes.

Last time I was on the Maine Turnpike, it was still a "closed" ticket system (like the New Jersey Turnpike).  A long time ago.

Quote
I-95 in North Carolina is a much busier road than it is in Maine (though the portion in Maine is a much better road than most of North Carolina's, at least the part south of Portland at least), but I'm certain North Carolina could study the way Maine set it up and figure out some way to do something similar. They've plainly stated that they really want to sock the out-of-staters who pass through the state but never stop except perhaps at a rest area to take a leak.

I usually make at least one stop in North Carolina when crossing it on I-95.  Either to fill up at the Sam's Club in Lumberton (near Exit 20) or at the outlet mall in Smithfield.  So I pay some taxes to N.C. when I go that way.

Quote
Maine also gives E-ZPass customers a major discount if they use the Turnpike a lot. The plan is set up so that while out-of-staters are technically eligible, in practice they'll never qualify unless they commute to work in Maine from a residence in New Hampshire or Massachusetts. North Carolina could opt to do the same if enough residents push for it.

I like the idea of giving short trips on I-95 a break from the tolls (regardless of residency of the vehicle), as Pennsylvania proposed to do with I-80. 

I don't like the system used by some states to give E-ZPass discounts only to their own residents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 23, 2012, 09:07:12 AM
TOLLROADSnews: NC Turnpike/ATI asking vendors to demo newest toll technologies, especially IOP in April (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/5770)

Quote
NCTA is especially interested license plate recognition and in multi protocol readers, NCTA director of operations Barry Mickle tells us, because of their location between Florida and the E-ZPass region and the importance of interstate travel in their future tollroads.  They are also very interested in improvements on the ISO 18000 6B sticker tags and the opportunity for lower cost transponders.

Quote
For the demonstrations they will have the use of the facilities at an emergency services training center next to the runway of an abandoned airfield near Sanford NC, 35 miles west of Raleigh. The runway pavement is just 0.8 miles, 1.2km long and 40ft, 12m wide.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 01, 2012, 11:11:17 PM
Ellmers against I-95 tolls (http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/ellmers_against_i95_toll_plan)

Quote
U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers opposes the I-95 tolls plan. The Dunn Republican charges that residents in her district would be disproportionately affected since a major portion of the highway runs through the region. She sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Wednesday calling for an economic impact study on local business and residents

Quote
Last month, North Carolina won preliminary approval from the Federal Highway Administration to collect tolls on Interstate 95 to pay for a $4.4 billion widening project.

Quote
“While I recognize the need to maintain I-95, paying for the construction through a highway tax could be devastating to residents and small businesses along the I-95 corridor,”  Ellmers wrote.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 02, 2012, 06:12:07 PM
Quote
U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers opposes the I-95 tolls plan. The Dunn Republican charges that residents in her district would be disproportionately affected since a major portion of the highway runs through the region. She sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Transportation Wednesday calling for an economic impact study on local business and residents

Quote
Last month, North Carolina won preliminary approval from the Federal Highway Administration to collect tolls on Interstate 95 to pay for a $4.4 billion widening project.

Quote
“While I recognize the need to maintain I-95, paying for the construction through a highway tax could be devastating to residents and small businesses along the I-95 corridor,”  Ellmers wrote.

What the hell kind of "news" sources do you always find? In the same quotes, it says that Ellmers reportedly opposes tolls, but is directly quoted in writing as saying that paying through a highway tax could be devastating. Sounds to me like she SUPPORTS the tolls.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on March 02, 2012, 06:18:43 PM
Eh, it's the Repub language where everything bad is a tax.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 03, 2012, 05:04:45 PM
What the hell kind of "news" sources do you always find?

The News & Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/), Raleigh, N.C.  More to the point, a blog belonging to said newspaper site called Under the Dome (http://projects.newsobserver.com/dome/).

Quote
In the same quotes, it says that Ellmers reportedly opposes tolls, but is directly quoted in writing as saying that paying through a highway tax could be devastating. Sounds to me like she SUPPORTS the tolls.

I interpret that to say that she does not want her constituents to pay any more in taxes or tolls to fund improvements to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on March 08, 2012, 04:47:54 PM
Slightly off-topic:

How come the state hasn't looked at widening I-77 to eight lanes from the Belk Freeway to the state line to match S.C.'s eight-laner? Traffic's flowing that good?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 15, 2012, 10:05:15 PM
I say just build 2 toll booths at the VA line and the SC line. Charge $5 at each one and just use that money to start building. Another mid-state toll could be added 10 years down the road. Yankees travelling to and from Florida don't go out of their way to avoid tolls. They're used to them. And NC locals wouldn't have anything to b*tch about either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 15, 2012, 10:48:54 PM
Slightly off-topic:

How come the state hasn't looked at widening I-77 to eight lanes from the Belk Freeway to the state line to match S.C.'s eight-laner? Traffic's flowing that good?
Personally I think the widening from I-485 north of Charlotte to at least Mooresville should be a higher priority considering that it is still only 4 lanes with high traffic levels on the weekends.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 16, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
I'd love to hear the reaction from the lakefront people in Cornelius on widening the bridge near Davidson
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 18, 2012, 03:59:54 PM
I say just build 2 toll booths at the VA line and the SC line. Charge $5 at each one and just use that money to start building. Another mid-state toll could be added 10 years down the road. Yankees travelling to and from Florida don't go out of their way to avoid tolls. They're used to them. And NC locals wouldn't have anything to b*tch about either.

Delaware Turnpike-style tolling is fine in Delaware, since that section of I-95 was built without  federal funding, and the federal government has no say-so about tolling (including location of toll points).   

I don't think the USDOT or its FHWA are going to permit that anywhere on the currently "free" Interstate system if federal dollars were used for construction or repair and rehabilitation.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 18, 2012, 09:14:58 PM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 19, 2012, 07:58:22 PM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?
I agree, I don't understand CP's point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 20, 2012, 08:10:58 AM
Is there any particular reason the federal government wouldn't allow NC to toll I-95 in that manner, if I-95 is approved for tolling?

I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 20, 2012, 09:49:02 AM
I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).

On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

A toll collection point near the state line would just be a much more obvious symbol of what those states are really trying to do; which is collect tolls from out-of-state motorists who are just passing through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 20, 2012, 03:21:24 PM
On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

I would think that folks in Williamsport, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Fayetteville, and Wilmington would disagree!

Raleigh and Wilmington are not directly on I-95, but I-95 provides a major access for those cities, in the case of Raleigh a state capital and served by spurs of I-40 and US-264.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 21, 2012, 11:01:25 AM
I suspect (but cannot prove) that the FHWA will not allow a state to impose tolls only on traffic crossing a state boundary as part of the Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot Program (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/interstate_rr.htm), for practical reasons (a single tolling point is likely to cause shunpiking) and for reasons of equity (states should not be allowed to discriminate against interstate travel).

On its face, that may be true, but in practical application, most of the interstates that the states are pushing for this program carry a higher-than-normal percentage of true interstate (or out-of-state) traffic.

H.B., that is correct (at least in most cases).  The Virginia proposal to toll I-95 is an exception.

Quote
I-80 connects nothing of real significance in Pennsylvania, but it's a major route from the Midwest to NYC.

I've driven almost none of I-80 in Penn's Woods, but from looking at a map, it seems you are correct.  "A whole lot of nothing." 

Other people that I trust say that long sections of I-80 in Pennsylvania need reconstruction and repair (and probably widening, though that was not included in the PTC/PennDOT proposal that was submitted to USDOT).

Quote
I-95 connects nothing of real significance in North Carolina, but it's a major route from Florida to the Northeast.

Absolutely correct.  I am one of those users, driving rather frequently from Maryland to South Carolina.

And I know that long sections of I-95 in North Carolina are badly in need of widening and total reconstruction. 

And even though NCDOT has done some remediation work, there are still about a dozen overpasses (mostly around and north of Lumberton) that are too low for Interstate-legal truck traffic.

Quote
A toll collection point near the state line would just be a much more obvious symbol of what those states are really trying to do; which is collect tolls from out-of-state motorists who are just passing through.

That's true, though (strange as it sounds), I liked the PTC/PennDOT proposal for tolling I-80 (I did not like the proposal to divert most of the I-80 revenue to militantly unionized hourly transit employees in urban areas of Pennsylvanian far from the I-80 corridor, however - nor did the Bush and Obama Administration USDOTs).   

Four-wheeled vehicles with E-ZPass transponders would have gotten the first toll collection gantry they passed on I-80 free of charge, in that way making a fair number of short intrastate trips toll-free.

Did you ever drive the Connecticut Turnpike in the years before it was de-tolled?  I did.  Even though there was no E-ZPass back then, it was pretty obvious to me that the barrier tolls were located in such a way to allow many local trips on the Turnpike to be free of charge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on March 21, 2012, 01:39:08 PM
FHWA must not have a concern tolls at state lines if they have ever traveled I-95 between Delaware and Maryland.  $5 just to cross the state line.  Not an issue for Delaware residents, but punish the out of state folks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on March 21, 2012, 02:25:55 PM
FHWA must not have a concern tolls at state lines if they have ever traveled I-95 between Delaware and Maryland.  $5 just to cross the state line.  Not an issue for Delaware residents, but punish the out of state folks.

That's not an FHWA issue. The Delaware Turnpike was constructed without federal Interstate funds and Delaware originally imposed the tolls to pay for it. The FHWA couldn't demand that they remove the tolls once the bonds were paid off, so the state now uses it as a cash cow to fund other things and to allow them not to have a sales tax.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on March 22, 2012, 01:58:00 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 22, 2012, 04:52:45 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 22, 2012, 11:41:07 PM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on March 23, 2012, 12:48:10 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2012, 06:22:31 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...

And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on March 23, 2012, 08:36:23 AM
Williamsport, Scranton and Wilkes-Barre aren't on I-80.

I-80 provides major Interstate east-west access to them, via spur I-380 and a section of I-81 for Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, and via spur I-180 and a section of US-220 for Williamsport.


What does this have to do with North Carolina?? Stay on topic...
It has to do with the topic of tolling I-95. Read the thread...

And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.

Significant, yes.

But as a percentage of statewide population (and seats in the respective state legislatures), no.

That is presumably why North Carolina is studying tolls on I-95, and why Pennsylvania promoted tolls on I-80.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 23, 2012, 08:55:08 AM
And the fact that NC I-95 and PA I-80 both DO serve significant cities in those states, directly and indirectly.

Significant, yes.

But as a percentage of statewide population (and seats in the respective state legislatures), no.

That is presumably why North Carolina is studying tolls on I-95, and why Pennsylvania promoted tolls on I-80.

I would disagree ... the I-80 zone in PA contains about 20% of the state population, and as stated before I-95 provides northerly and southerly access to the state capital Raleigh, and several other NC cities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2012, 07:03:37 AM
A new NC 130 Business has been designated in Shallotte, as mainline NC 130 has been placed on the Smith Rd extension.  Not sure about the need for this...NC 130 still goes through most of the town on its duplex with US 17 Business...


http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Programs/data/route_change/2012/2012_02_20.pdf (http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/Programs/data/route_change/2012/2012_02_20.pdf)


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 09, 2012, 01:16:57 PM
A new NC 130 Business has been designated in Shallotte, as mainline NC 130 has been placed on the Smith Rd extension.  Not sure about the need for this...NC 130 still goes through most of the town on its duplex with US 17 Business...

A few years back they did the same thing to NC 179 down the road in Sunset Beach....seems useless to me
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 15, 2012, 09:16:57 AM
Didn't realize this but the northbound span of the new I-85 bridge over the Yadkin River is open to traffic. Two lanes are open.

Two Southbound lanes will be temporarily moved onto the new bridge in July.  The southbound four lane span should be open next year.  One article says January the other says May.

I'll most likely be crossing the new bridge this weekend coming back from the Warrior Dash in Charlotte this weekend.

http://triad.news14.com/content/top_stories/657055/i-85-north-bridge-over-yadkin-river-to-open-saturday
http://salisbury.wbtv.com/news/transportation/72982-85yadkin-river-bridge-now-open
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on May 15, 2012, 06:16:16 PM
I drove across the bridge a couple of months ago.

Never did figure out how you take Exit 84, turn left and go to Spencer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on May 15, 2012, 10:17:31 PM
I drove across the bridge a couple of months ago.

Never did figure out how you take Exit 84, turn left and go to Spencer.
Currently, if you take Exit 84, you can make a hard left turn onto Old Salisbury Road, which will take you down to US 29/70 just east of the old highway bridge. You can only turn left onto the bridge. There is one lane open westbound. After the end of the bridge, traffic is diverted onto a temporary road paralelling the highway. You reenter US 29/70 at the barricades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 09, 2012, 09:21:52 AM
News & Observer: Taking a toll: Drivers knock DOT's plans for I-95 (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/01/2109956/taking-a-toll-drivers-knock-dots.html)

Quote
North Carolina drivers who use Interstate 95 the most know it’s in bad shape. But some out on their Sunday drives said they would avoid using the highway if the state started collecting tolls to improve it.

Quote
Their reaction illustrates one of the challenges to adding tolls to an existing road, even to upgrade one as worn as I-95. Construction of the major north-south highway started in North Carolina in the mid-1950s and ended in 1980. Some sections of the four-lane corridor have seen no improvements since they were built.

Quote
Toll opposition has united Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who have teamed to file bills giving the legislature final say over tolling the interstate. A bill to block federal approval of the toll filed by U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers, a Republican from Dunn, has bipartisan support among the state’s congressional delegation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on June 24, 2012, 01:55:28 AM
News & Observer: Class-action ruling could add thousands of drivers to Cary red-light camera lawsuit (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/06/22/2154364/class-action-ruling-could-add.html)

Quote
A Wake County judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by two drivers against Cary’s red-light camera traffic enforcement system, opening the possibility that Cary could be forced to refund $50 tickets paid by thousands of drivers since late 2009.

Quote
The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by Brian Ceccarelli, an Apex computer consultant. He blames his November 2009 ticket on a fleeting yellow light at Cary Towne Boulevard and Convention Drive, arguing that it was too brief to give drivers time to stop safely before the light turned red.

Quote
Ceccarelli calls himself a physicist on the strength of his undergraduate degree in physics from the University of Arizona. He argues that it is impossible for drivers to stop their cars in the short time allowed, citing Newton’s second law of motion, which explains the relationship between the mass of an object and the amount of force needed to make it accelerate or decelerate.

Quote
Ceccarelli’s arguments were dismissed in 2010 in formal papers published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), but he expressed disdain in reply.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 25, 2012, 10:37:43 PM
The Diverging Diamond Interchange - started in France - imported to Missouri - and slowly appearing in North Carolina - is being proposed at one of the busiest interchanges in the Asheville area.  If built, the Interstate 26 interchange with NC 280 will be home of the seventh type interchange within the state.

This interchange also serves Asheville Regional Airport and the area has seen significant growth over the last two decades.  Construction on the new DDI interchange should begin in the fall of 2013 at a cost of $6.4 million.


Story Link: http://www.hendersonvillelightning.com/news/375-dot-previews-interchange-design-for-n-c-280.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on June 27, 2012, 09:34:37 AM
Is a diverging diamond interchange still under consideration in Waynesville at US-23/US-74 and Hyatt Creek Road (US-23 Business)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 30, 2012, 06:33:48 PM
Is there an NCDOT site where I can find diagrams of the Sanford Bypass (guess) and I-295 (Fayetteville)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 01, 2012, 12:13:35 PM
Is there an NCDOT site where I can find diagrams of the Sanford Bypass (guess) and I-295 (Fayetteville)?
The NCDOT has project breakdown maps for Sanford, I-295, and many other projects here:
http://www.ncdot.gov/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/ (http://www.ncdot.gov/planning/development/tip/prbmaps/maps/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 10, 2012, 09:26:54 PM
News & Observer: GOP legislators attack plans for seven-mile, $650 million Outer Banks toll bridge (http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/10/05/2392577/gop-legislators-attack-plans-for.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on October 11, 2012, 11:42:31 PM
News & Observer: DOT will study economic impact of its $4.4 billion I-95 toll proposal (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/crosstown/dot-will-study-economic-impact-of-its-44-billion-i-95-toll-proposal)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
NCDOT has posted on its Route Changes webpage a letter to the FHWA Regional Office in Raleigh from this past spring requesting that the current portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop from I-40/85 to US 70 east of Greensboro be signed as I-785. A curious request since they got approval to sign it as I-840 last year and have not signed it nor are there currently any plans to upgrade the remainder of the proposed I-795 route north of the Loop along US 29 (the construction of the portion of the Loop to US 29 is scheduled to start next year). They also want additional Interstate maintenance funds with the request. Do they get more money if the route has two interstates on it rather than just one?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on October 16, 2012, 06:44:44 AM
Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 16, 2012, 11:25:30 AM
Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
I can comment on I-285. NCDOT is supposed to let a contract out in November 2013 that will upgrade US 52/NC 8. It will upgrade the highway for several miles in Davidson County to bring it up to interstate standards and then calls for the contractor to repave (and I presume, add signage) from I-85 to I-40. Hopefully, this can be completed by the end of 2014. Don't know when the plan, if funded, to upgrade US 52 through Winston-Salem (beyond what they are doing now) is going to take place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 16, 2012, 11:32:57 AM
NCDOT has posted on its Route Changes webpage a letter to the FHWA Regional Office in Raleigh from this past spring requesting that the current portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop from I-40/85 to US 70 east of Greensboro be signed as I-785. A curious request since they got approval to sign it as I-840 last year and have not signed it nor are there currently any plans to upgrade the remainder of the proposed I-785 route north of the Loop along US 29 (the construction of the portion of the Loop to US 29 is scheduled to start next year). They also want additional Interstate maintenance funds with the request. Do they get more money if the route has two interstates on it rather than just one?
Corrected that mistake for you. I-795 is the former US 117 freeway further east. I'll have to check on the guidelines for Interstate maintenance funds, but my guess is they won't get any additional funds for a route that has two Interstates signed on it, only the new single-numbered routes.

Does Bob or anyone here have an update on I-285 from Lexington to Winston-Salem? And I-485 in Charlotte from I-77 to I-85? (Last leg)
I can comment on I-285. NCDOT is supposed to let a contract out in November 2013 that will upgrade US 52/NC 8. It will upgrade the highway for several miles in Davidson County to bring it up to interstate standards and then calls for the contractor to repave (and I presume, add signage) from I-85 to I-40. Hopefully, this can be completed by the end of 2014. Don't know when the plan, if funded, to upgrade US 52 through Winston-Salem (beyond what they are doing now) is going to take place.
My guess is, they'll wait until part of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway is finished. And as for I-485, IIRC, the timetable is to have the entire loop open by 2015, if not earlier than that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 23, 2012, 08:10:55 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 23, 2012, 09:24:31 PM
Looks like that set of shops a few blocks near the RCC
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on October 23, 2012, 10:06:29 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on October 24, 2012, 01:32:58 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Yes, it is.  I was there at the end of August for my brother's wedding and stayed there.  I did see this particular sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 24, 2012, 06:49:36 PM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alpsroads/8117558289/

This is somewhere in Raleigh. Who recognizes it?

Looks like North Hills to me, at Six Forks Rd and the I-440 Beltline.
Yes, it is.  I was there at the end of August for my brother's wedding and stayed there.  I did see this particular sign.
And what do you think of 21st-century yellow yields? :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on October 26, 2012, 01:51:43 AM
Like being back in the 1960's or early 1970's. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on January 14, 2013, 02:55:59 PM
News & Observer: Board of Transportation members want tolls on Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry, too (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/12/2602599/board-of-transportation-members.html)

(http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2013/01/12/19/37/EqS9m.Em.156.jpeg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on January 15, 2013, 03:55:28 PM
Talk about jacking the prices up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on January 30, 2013, 01:24:47 PM
DOT plans meeting on I-26 widening proposal (http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130124/NEWS/301240021/DOT-revisitING-proposal-towidenbusy-Interstate?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|FRONTPAGE)

Quote
Ten years after a lawsuit derailed a project to widen a stretch of Interstate 26 in Henderson County, the N.C. Department of Transportation is again proposing to widen the busy road.

This time the proposal involves a 22-mile stretch from south of Hendersonville to Asheville.

State transportation department officials will hold an informational meeting Jan. 31 to talk about a long-range plan to widen the road from U.S. 25 in the East Flat Rock area of Henderson County to Interstate 40 in Buncombe County.

Quote
Work on the first sections is tentatively set to begin in the 2019-20 fiscal year, according to DOT’s long-range plans. However, officials say that could change.

Quote
The current cost estimates total around $263 million for the 22 miles. The work would be done in phases with the final phase starting in 2030.

The idea of widening I-26 has been around for a while. But it has proven controversial.

In 2002, DOT was on the verge of signing a contract to start work on a 13.6-mile stretch of the road between East Flat Rock and the Buncombe County line when a lawsuit was filed by several environmental and citizen groups.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on January 30, 2013, 01:39:32 PM
Damn tree-huggers tried doing the same thing to hold back the Winston-Salem Northern Belt (Future I-74), finally were defeated and the project is now on the books, with a portion of it funded and set for construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:42:36 AM
IIRC, it was moreso the local residents than the "tree-huggers" who got I-26 delayed in Asheville.  There's some quite stringent LOCAL opposition to the project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 02, 2013, 08:46:28 AM
BTW, posted the following on Facebook last weekend but just realized I never posted it here:

- About 4 miles of US 17 south of the Washington bypass has been 4-laned, with "Superstreet" elements included in the construction.

- The next phase of widening north of Washington is underway, about 4 more miles from a little north of the Washington bypass to just north of NC 171. Traffic is now 2-way on the new lanes while the old lanes are torn up for rehab. Bulb-outs along the construction zone suggest that this will be a "Superstreet" as well. (I posted 2 photos of this on the Southeast Roads group on Facebook.)

- Noticed that both the Windsor bypass (from US 13 North east to old 17) and the freeway segment around Edenton (including the Chowan River bridge) are posted 70 MPH. By comparison, the Washington bypass was "only" 65 MPH.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 06, 2013, 08:25:47 PM
News & Observer:  NC DOT can blame its customers or learn from them (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/04/2656086/road-worrier-ncdot-can-blame-its.html)

Quote
Thank you for calling Customer Service. How may I insult you?

Quote
Oh, let me count the ways.

Quote
You could double-bill the drivers you hope to turn into loyal, paying customers for your billion-dollar toll road. Then, without apology, blame them for your blunder.

Quote
That’s the N.C. Turnpike Authority approach. Who do they think they are — the DMV?

Quote
At the state Department of Transportation, now under new management, customer service is a hot concept. It was a catchphrase in Pat McCrory’s gubernatorial campaign and became a mission mantra for Tony Tata, his new DOT secretary.

Quote
Tata is focusing first on the Division of Motor Vehicles, where there’s plenty of room for improvement in customer service. Chapel Hill, where I live, has gone three months without a license tag office. A note on the door tells drivers to go to Durham.

Quote
Tata is considering recommendations to open offices on weekends, establish shopping mall kiosks, and provide online options for parents who keep driving logs for teens with learner’s permits.

Quote
And after he makes DMV more responsive to the millions of drivers it regulates, Tata might be ready to fix the Turnpike Authority. He’ll find some unhappy customers there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2013, 07:59:50 PM
News & Observer:  NCDOT Secretary Tata apologizes for toll-road double-billing, promises fix (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/02/07/2661412/tata-apologizes-for-toll-road.html)

Quote
It wasn’t their fault, after all, Tony Tata says.

Quote
More than 800 drivers are receiving toll-road refunds and profuse apologies from the state Department of Transportation — by telephone and by mail — because they were double-billed for trips on the Triangle Expressway.

Quote
“It was completely avoidable,”  Tata, the state transportation secretary, said Thursday. “It’s our fault. And we are fixing the problem, and your account is going to be credited. So we accept full responsibility for this.”

Quote
The billing errors started Jan. 3, when the state Turnpike Authority began accepting electronic toll payments from drivers with E-ZPass transponders. Drivers who also had N.C. Quick Pass transponders in their cars were charged twice, through the separate debit accounts tied to each transponder.

Quote
Last week, N.C. Turnpike Authority and E-ZPass officials blamed their customers for the double-billing.

Quote
They said drivers could have avoided the problem by complying with the fine-print terms and conditions of their contracts, which admonish toll-road drivers not to travel with more than one transponder in the car.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 08, 2013, 09:35:39 AM
TOLLROADSnews: Missing lines of code in transaction management software cause double billing in North Carolina (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6396)

Quote
Most transaction management software looks for transponder reads in a lane that are very close in time to one another and dumps all but one of the reads. Those lines of code to match and dump redundant reads are apparently missing from the ACS/Xerox backoffice data processing algorithms, and ACS programmers are working on adding the function.

Quote
Meanwhile the NC Turnpike Triangle Expressway in Raleigh has been getting some bad publicity for double billing motorists with two transponders on their windshield - an E-ZPass on an account in Virginia, say, plus a 6B+ sticker tag brand NC QuickPass issued by NC Turnpike/DOT.

Quote
The Raleigh News Observer's Bruce Siceloff quotes the NC secretary of transportation Tony Tata as saying today: "It’s our fault. And we are fixing the problem, and your account is going to be credited. So we accept full responsibility for this. It was completely avoidable."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 13, 2013, 07:24:35 PM
BTW, posted the following on Facebook last weekend but just realized I never posted it here:

- About 4 miles of US 17 south of the Washington bypass has been 4-laned, with "Superstreet" elements included in the construction.

A portion of it appears to already show up in Google's aerial imagery! http://goo.gl/maps/60VkV The next image south of this one shows pavement but no markings yet, and the next image to the north still shows a 2-lane road, and the lack of a Washington bypass.

Quote
- Noticed that both the Windsor bypass (from US 13 North east to old 17) and the freeway segment around Edenton (including the Chowan River bridge) are posted 70 MPH. By comparison, the Washington bypass was "only" 65 MPH.[/i]

I'm glad to hear the Chowan River bridge has been raised to 70! Last time I drove down there (2010 or early 2011), the Elizabeth City and Windsor bypasses were posted at 70, and the Edenton bypass was posted at 65 east of the Chowan River bridge, with the bridge itself at a painfully low 55.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 12:13:03 PM
Durham's 11 foot 8 inch "Bridge of Death" claims another victim.  This time a semitrailer. 

WRAL:  Tractor-trailer stuck under Durham bridge; some roads closed (http://www.wral.com/tractor-trailer-stuck-under-durham-bridge-some-roads-closed/12128762/)

Atlantic Cities article from 2012 about the bridge: Durham's Bridge of Death Will Decapitate Any Tall Truck (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/10/durhams-bridge-death-will-decapitate-any-tall-truck/3707/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on February 20, 2013, 01:48:19 PM
Alright, the bridge clearance says 11'8"; my trailer is 13'6"...  :hmm:  Aww, I'll give it a try.

It's like watching trucks take the Onondaga Lake Pkwy. :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 01:59:31 PM
I don't see how the bridge is the problem. I remember that bridge from when I lived there and I remember there being plenty of warning signs. It seems to me it's the driver's responsibility to avoid it.

There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

(http://www.readthehook.com/files/imagecache/max_viewable/images/field_images/snap-stuck-truck.jpg)

(http://www.readthehook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/snap-stuck-truck1.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 03:30:09 PM
I don't see how the bridge is the problem. I remember that bridge from when I lived there and I remember there being plenty of warning signs. It seems to me it's the driver's responsibility to avoid it.

Agreed.  And CDL drivers especially, which the driver of today's tractor-trailer should have had (though most of the trucks featured in the video linked by the Atlantic above do not require a CDL).

There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

Interesting regarding the bell, which I presume is the speaker-like contraption attached to the bridge itself?

There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

A driver that strikes the bridge in Charlottesville like those two featured in your images above are (IMO) ideal candidates for one of those dreaded Virginia reckless driving summonses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 20, 2013, 03:53:50 PM
There's an even lower-clearance railroad bridge (10'0") in Charlottesville, Virginia. That one has a loud bell on each side that sounds any time a large vehicle approaches. Given that a couple of bus routes pass around the corner on the far side of the bridge as seen in this Street View image ( http://goo.gl/maps/OejNL ) that bell used to sound all the time. But the Charlottesville police ticket any truck driver who slams into a low bridge (basis for the ticket is either failure to obey a road sign or failure to pay full time and attention).

Interesting regarding the bell, which I presume is the speaker-like contraption attached to the bridge itself?

....

Correct. Also, you can't see it in those two images, but there's a light-up flashing sign to the right of that speaker thing as well (you can see it in the Street View image I linked).

I recall that bell thing seeming really loud when it would sound as I was waiting to cross the street there.

Incidentally, there's a sign warning of that low clearance as far west as Emmet Street (US-29 Business). You'd think there would be another at Rugby Road (the last light before the bridge, and the last street wide enough to accommodate large trucks without a very tight squeeze), but there isn't.


Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 05:45:43 PM
Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u

Here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.186926,-76.642395&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.186833,-76.642328&panoid=DBTuct8F_AuKVUzbvFh4CA&cbp=12,242.95,,0,5.46) is one that's even lower - North Hollins Ferry  Road off of Md. 648 (Baltimore-Annapolis Boulevard) in Ferndale, Anne Arundel County (not far from BWI Airport) under the Maryland Transit Administration's light rail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Light_Rail) tracks (formerly the Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Annapolis_Railroad)), the posted overhead clearance is only 6' 8"!

Fortunately, it is one-way.  If you click on the photos, you will see a light rail train crossing the bridge from the "other side" of the tracks from Md. 648.

Nearby is another oddity - a fire station with its very own grade crossing (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.182797,-76.640035&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.182738,-76.639665&panoid=FUItaxAoVeuFnN8r2HDiAg&cbp=12,276.09,,0,16.02) of the light rail line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 20, 2013, 06:12:05 PM
We already had this discussion: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5222.0
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: deathtopumpkins on February 20, 2013, 06:39:19 PM
There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

There's one on the mainline approach too: http://goo.gl/maps/53wNB. I've never heard either actually sound though.

Nearby is another oddity - a fire station with its very own grade crossing (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=ferndale,+md&hl=en&ll=39.182797,-76.640035&spn=0.002341,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.001189,0.002411&t=m&hnear=Ferndale,+Anne+Arundel,+Maryland&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.182738,-76.639665&panoid=FUItaxAoVeuFnN8r2HDiAg&cbp=12,276.09,,0,16.02) of the light rail line.

There's a similar example in Boston, on Huntington Ave at Ruggles St: http://goo.gl/maps/IGcK9
The Green Line tracks are in the median of Huntington, rather than between two two-way roads as in CP's example, but the crossing is exclusively for fire vehicles who wish to go west on Huntington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 20, 2013, 08:20:25 PM

Quote
Edited to add: BTW, this one (also in Charlottesville, but on the other end of town) may be the lowest-clearance railroad crossing I know of....and it's a one-lane underpass too! http://goo.gl/maps/cJU7u

Here's another 9'2" railroad underpass on SR 623 Falmouth with the added bonus that the road is itself a low water bridge over a creek.  This floods all the time though the diagonal thing you see across the road is an attempt to displace water better....

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 20, 2013, 10:15:51 PM
There used to be one of those attached to one of the overhead sign assemblies on westbound I-64 approaching the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel inspection station in Norfolk, but I think it has been removed (I never heard it sound, but I presume it was pretty loud - maybe it was to alert any HAZMAT carriers or overheight vehicles  to pull in to the inspection station).  There's still one at one of the eastbound entrance ramps in  Hampton (GSV here (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=hampton+va&hl=en&ll=37.015444,-76.32753&spn=0.004789,0.009645&sll=37.015447,-76.327525&sspn=0.004823,0.009645&t=h&gl=us&hnear=Hampton,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=37.015444,-76.32753&panoid=qMveE7DwUBtxQ3md4_1T_Q&cbp=12,157.5,,0,9.01)).

There's one on the mainline approach too: http://goo.gl/maps/53wNB. I've never heard either actually sound though.

Thank you.

The diameter of the one on the westbound mainline of I-64 on the Willoughby Spit approaching the HRBT was much larger in diameter (maybe because it was louder?), but as I told Hoo, I never heard it make a sound, nor was it clear how or who activated it.

Here's another 9'2" railroad underpass on SR 623 Falmouth with the added bonus that the road is itself a low water bridge over a creek.  This floods all the time though the diagonal thing you see across the road is an attempt to displace water better....

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fredericksburg,+VA&hl=en&ll=38.329,-77.449672&spn=0.002373,0.004823&sll=38.028719,-78.479949&sspn=0.0012,0.002411&oq=fredericksburg&t=h&hnear=Fredericksburg,+Virginia&z=18&layer=c&cbll=38.329,-77.449672&panoid=Nm1UfnU499gAbqRNlO3Ekg&cbp=12,100.39,,0,0

Going to have to take a look-see at that the next time I am in the Spotsylvania County vicinity.

Fixed quote for you - Connor
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 24, 2013, 10:08:05 AM
When NCDOT replaced the 65 mph signs on I-540 with the new increased 70 mph signs, they also installed new Interstate 540 shields.  The replacement also included this sign

(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2012/2442357790_137c6230c0.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/2442357790/)
IMG_3216 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/2442357790/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

..and its twin sign on I-540 East.

No word yet if any of the sign folks will be holding a memorial service for this sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 24, 2013, 10:01:59 PM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 24, 2013, 10:21:53 PM
It was too dark for me to get pictures, but NC DOT seems to have gone off track a little bit.  At the Old NC 10 (Exit 118) and Parker Padgett Road (Exit 75) interchanges on East I-40, they have upgraded their final signs to MUTCD standards, but they seem to have forgotten the part about DIRECTIONAL TAB ALIGNMENT.  Both have the EXIT ### tabs centered on the signs.  I hope the new signs in Morganton aren't like that as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 25, 2013, 12:21:05 AM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.

Typical NCDOT actions. They usually replace signs that doesn't have anything wrong with them... way to waste more money.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2013, 06:52:33 AM
What was wrong with the old signs? They were 5 years old, but likely in fine condition.

Typical NCDOT actions. They usually replace signs that doesn't have anything wrong with them... way to waste more money.

I can name numerous DOT's that do the same.

They replaced the signs all the way from Exit 4 to Exit 26.  Some of the signs were leftovers from the 'Future' I-540 days and didn't have interstate printed on them or were without directional banners etc.  SO these signs were anywhere from 6-13 years old.

I have no problem with it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 25, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
Yeah.. if they were to replace the leftovers from Future I-540 days, then I can understand why. But speaking of other signs that doesn't have issues.. and they replace them? for example: on Battleground Ave (US 220) in Greensboro, their shields were in great shape, but they get replaced anyways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on February 25, 2013, 04:05:30 PM
They should replace the "Future I-74" shields with "Interstate 74" shields in Forsyth County now that it is recognized as such all the way to I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 01, 2013, 01:00:17 PM
TOLLROADSnews: Studying the Red route while having declared it verboten, finis, terminar - NC540 SE ext (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6486)

Quote
Federal permitting of highway projects has reached new levels of absurdity in North Carolina - that the Feds have suspended consideration of permits for the southeast extension of NC540 belt route unless North Carolina DOT reinstates studies of a 'Red Route' which by state law it is not allowed to do. Project planning  for the southeast extension - a southside part of the 540 belt route around the NC capital - has been on hold for over two years now.

Quote
The project initiated by the NC Turnpike Authority since it is an extension of the Triangle Expressway. Since the Turnpike's extinction it is now NCDOT which also favors an alternative route. At issue is whether the belt route expressway in Wake County takes the shortest route through the town of Garner (the Red Route) or how it swings to the south (Orange route). There are also light blue (with a dark blue variant), plum, lilac and brown routes all of which are south of the main built-up area of metro Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 01, 2013, 03:08:38 PM
Changin subjects, I am back in my hometown of Winston-Salem, just drove US 52 to check out the widening/bridge replacement project, scheduled to finish next month, and nothing looks different from the "grand plans" it entailed.

Still same ol', dangerous US 52 with stupid-short on/off ramps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 02, 2013, 10:53:54 AM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on April 02, 2013, 11:34:51 AM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 02, 2013, 01:05:42 PM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

Man Alex that's a great point, I never thought of NC 87 as a temp designation (some have speculated that US 17 will be moved again but that would be as stupid as what they did in New Bern a couple years back with their newest by-pass).

I personally think it will be designated "Future I-140" and/or have the "TO 74/76 and "TO US 17" as you also speculated.

The logical think would have been to build the middle segment (between US74/76 and US421) first but I think the "C" segment got GARVEE bonds or somethin to accelerate its construction. 2015 will be a big year for I-140, maybe at that point we will know of I-74 will be drawn closer to it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on April 05, 2013, 02:26:35 PM
Out of Control (Reason Foundation): New Study Suggests Transportation Priorities for North Carolina (http://reason.org/blog/show/new-study-suggests-transportation-p)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 05, 2013, 08:25:05 PM

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

There is precedent for the NC 87 option in the Wilmington area.  I learned just today that I-40 from Wallace southward was designated as NC 132 from Jan 1983 to Aug 1984.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1983_01_01.pdf

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1984_08_01.pdf


I don't know if this was signed or not, though, and the 1984 official showed the freeway as not open yet...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 06, 2013, 01:55:16 PM

Nice coverage of the newest segment, I had no idea it was even under construction. I surmise that NC 87 will be moved to follow the new freeway segment when it opens and be the sole designation for it until I-140 is connected in 2015 or later. Is that the plan, or will it get signage displaying something like "TO US 17 south" and "TO US 74/76 west"?

There is precedent for the NC 87 option in the Wilmington area.  I learned just today that I-40 from Wallace southward was designated as NC 132 from Jan 1983 to Aug 1984.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1983_01_01.pdf

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1984_08_01.pdf


I don't know if this was signed or not, though, and the 1984 official showed the freeway as not open yet...

Mapmikey

NCDOT sometimes label new sections of freeway as NC Highways before becoming U.S. or Interstate highway sections.  Other examples include current NC 44 covering for future US 70, former NC 752 becoming I-74, and the currently unbannered NC 295 for future I-295.  With exception of the last example, they were bannered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on April 06, 2013, 02:15:05 PM
As a counterexample, the current Sanford Bypass has no number. It will become US 421 (and US 421 connector) once the bypass is completed to current US 421. The segment from NC 42 to US 1 has been open for years without a number and signed TO US 1/TO NC 42. When the last segment was opened to connect to US 421 East and NC 87 East, the signage was changed to indicate control cities ( Lillington eastbound ). IMO, the current bypass should carry NC 87 now, but the current plans are for NC 87 to go through Sanford and US 421 to take the Bypass once completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 06, 2013, 02:27:48 PM
Does Anyone know of details for a signing contract for either or both of these:

Brunswick Co- future I-140 project
Forsyth Co- I-74 (co-signed with US 311) from Guilford Co line to I-40
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 07, 2013, 02:18:46 AM
I can vouch for the I-74 part. No signage changes. The only exception is: they added I-74 mile markers along the road, and there seems to be a widening project going on at Union Cross Rd interchange. Looks like they are making this a folded diamond instead...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on April 08, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
I have posted photos taken along the next section of I-140 to open later this year and videos of driving along the Wilmington Bypass and US 74/76 in Brunswick County on my NC Future Interstates I-140 page:
http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut140.html) Enjoy.
I drove right past there last October (editing photos now). Wish I knew about this, I'd have detoured down US 17 and 74/76!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Urban Prairie Schooner on May 07, 2013, 11:55:10 AM
Found this by chance - apparently some folks in Wilmington have coveted an I-20 extension for quite some time:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19630804&id=p0NjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MXQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3147,535385 (scroll up for picture)
 
Of course, this was before I-40 was planned to be extended, but interesting anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 20, 2013, 11:21:44 AM
TOLLROADSnews: North Carolina's lower house votes 113-0 to limit interstate tolls to added lanes - kills I-95 tolling? (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6554)

Quote
2013-05-20: The North Carolina House of Representatives voted 113 in favor, none opposed May 16 to a bill that limits tolls on interstates to added lanes. This would halt the state DOT's plans to finance $4.5 billion of rebuild of the 182 miles of I-95 from the Virginia to the South Carolina order by fully tolling the interstate. A NCDOT sponsored Cambridge Systematics economic impact study recently released showed stakeholder support for the full toll plan. It did propose, however, to 'mitigate' tolls for local people by 50% to address complaints about the local burden.

Quote
Those who followed the debate in the legislature in Raleigh last week said the amendment that passed unanimously "came from nowhere" and there was little discussion of its implications. I-95 is not mentioned in the bill, but much of the debate was in the context of arguments about the big interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 20, 2013, 04:14:46 PM
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 21, 2013, 01:31:15 AM
I-95 should have been widened a long time ago. Thanks to these unnecessary projects being built in NC (especially the eastern section of the state).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 21, 2013, 06:40:59 AM
Quote
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.

Given I-95's traffic volumes, 2-3-3-2 would be some serious overkill and would take a noticeable dent out of some of the towns it passes through (namely Wilson and Lumberton).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 21, 2013, 12:30:01 PM
Quote
Without reading the bill, the wording you mention still seems to allow 95 to be rebuilt as a 2-3-3-2 with tolls on the center lanes.

Given I-95's traffic volumes, 2-3-3-2 would be some serious overkill and would take a noticeable dent out of some of the towns it passes through (namely Wilson and Lumberton).

I agree.  And the nice people in North  Carolina should "be careful what they ask for, because they just might get it."  If there are 3-3 toll lanes in the middle with 2-2 "free" lanes on the  outside, I think it safe to assume that there will be much less in the way of access and egress to and from those tolled lanes, which means that some businesses in the corridor are likely to lose business - potentially a lot of business.

The impact on Lumberton (especially the retail that faces I-95 on frontage roads between Exits 20 and 22) could be significant (though I think  most of the stores are set back far enough that there would not be any need to tear anything down).  Not sure that the impact on Wilson would be as bad, given that they will have access via I-795/U.S. 264 and probably Alternate U.S. 264 regardless of what alternatives emerge.

I-95 across all of North Carolina needs the following:

At least three lanes each way (and probably four lanes each way between Fayetteville and I-40);
Reconstruction of the substandard "diamond" interchanges (the ones at Selma and Smithfield are (IMO) especially bad);
Perhaps removal of a few interchanges, or the addition of C-D lanes; and
Elimination of the (many) remaining low-overhead-clearance overpasses, especially north of Lumberton.

NCDOT has a pretty good discussion of these and related issues in the Purpose and Need for the project here (http://www.driving95.com/assets/pdfs/MeetingMaterials/EnvAssessment2012/001_Ch1_PurposeAndNeedForImprovements.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 4.31 MB).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mdcastle on May 21, 2013, 02:40:01 PM
Driving NC 12 definitely is a unique experience. Is there some reason only the northern half of the proposed road to Cape Lookout got built. I could also see replacing the Oregon Inlet Bridge with a ferry if it were free. Ocracoke didn't seem to be doing too badly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on June 06, 2013, 09:44:07 PM
I found this sign in Fayetteville, North Carolina last year...they look like Virginia's secondary route signs. But I've never seen four-digit routes posted anywhere else in the state, except for those funny little four-digit panels on stop signs.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/8467/28883721693_df61c0c2be_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/L1mCaB)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/4549/26944906629_3776c73427_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/H42FZF)

Something new? Or a one-off?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 06, 2013, 09:46:27 PM
I found this sign in Fayetteville, North Carolina last year...they look like Virginia's secondary route signs. But I've never seen four-digit routes posted anywhere else in the state, except for those funny little four-digit panels on stop signs.

(http://www.formulanone.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NC1007sign.jpg)

Something new? Or a one-off?

Typical install for 1000-1010 secondary routes (sometimes greater).

Steffora used to have samples of various secondary routes on his page.  I don't think Mike was able to transfer that to the newer ncroads site
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on June 06, 2013, 10:01:35 PM
Ah, thanks. Turns out, it's part of the All-American Freeway, according to wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_American_Freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 07, 2013, 01:43:42 PM
North Carolina has been posting their SR 10xx routes this way since about 1960.  They also used to put a number on the front of those signs that  may have denoted which county you were in, such as these photos from aashields:

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481000 (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481000)

www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481606 (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=NC19481606)

However, The 1959 Official also shows one of these shields with a 5xxx route number with a 27 which would correspond to Currituck County.  My theory about this is that the secondary numbering scheme as we know it in North Carolina appeared in 1960 (the 1957 County Maps and earlier back to 1930 show NO secondary numbering at all), and the 1959 Official was giving an example of what a secondary posting was going to look like.  I bet somebody decided it would be too expensive to post those signs for ALL secondary routes and they ramped it down to just the major 10xx ones.


(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1959mapshields.gif)


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 07, 2013, 03:21:31 PM
I wasn't aware of the existence of black SR signs until I saw the one on aashields, so I have no idea.

My earliest memories of NC travels are about 1974 and I do not recall anything other than white...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on June 09, 2013, 03:41:48 PM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.
I've never seen a black one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 10, 2013, 06:08:01 PM
I've never seen a black one.

I've seen the black ones, but they are very uncommon.  Signs that incorporate secondary highway numbers are either typically on white or green (seen on freeways), though most are incorporated on green street signs.  Keep in mind, the numbers reset in every county and do not traverse through incorporated towns or cities that maintain their own roads.  They are used more for State and County record keeping as oppose to using road names, while most roads highlight the road name for drivers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on June 10, 2013, 09:46:20 PM
Random NC question that I didn't think needed its own thread: does anyone know why they've closed two lanes of Rivers Street in Boone, NC. They've torn up the road so I'm assuming they're trying to reach some kind of pipe. But does anyone know what or how long it will take?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on June 11, 2013, 08:54:54 AM
Random NC question that I didn't think needed its own thread: does anyone know why they've closed two lanes of Rivers Street in Boone, NC. They've torn up the road so I'm assuming they're trying to reach some kind of pipe. But does anyone know what or how long it will take?

They're putting in a new steam tunnel, and the lanes will be closed til late July.

http://physicalplant.appstate.edu/news/rivers-street-lane-closure
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 02, 2013, 08:16:42 AM
lovely block fonts on the shields even in the 1959 diagram.  I think they switched, in actual use, to round fonts by ~1952.

do you know when they changed from black background to white on the secondary signs?

I have several of the fully embossed black ones, if anyone wants one.  they're not too rare; I'd let them go for 25 each plus shipping.

Every now and then you'll find a white on green one as well.

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3770/9189808072_63576344c6.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9189808072/)
IMG_7815 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9189808072/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Photo above is on "The Football Road" in Alamance County

The photo is in black & white - but this still exists on US 401 in Rolesville

http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/various/nc1003.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on July 09, 2013, 04:07:25 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2013, 06:27:32 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 09, 2013, 06:49:32 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.

I have seen them commonly in the Sandhills area of North Carolina (Fayetteville, Lumberton, etc.).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2013, 07:17:16 PM
I do miss those white directional mileage signs!

They seem to be quite common in NC still. Saw quite a few last week in Johnson County along US-70 and NC-42.

I have seen them commonly in the Sandhills area of North Carolina (Fayetteville, Lumberton, etc.).

There are very common through much of the state.  In some maintenance districts, they are newer reflective types. in a handful of districts, they have been removed.  But you can pretty much travel anywhere in the state and still come across these.

Finding black on white town & crossroads signs; however, is very rare.

Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

I wasn't able to take a photo of it last year when we came across on the way back from the Warrior Dash.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2013, 07:19:52 PM
Here's an example of one in Troutman -  IIRC there were a few still in that area along NC 115 but that was ten years ago since i last was on NC 115 or US 21 north of Huntersville.

http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/subs/whitesignnc150-patriarca.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 09, 2013, 08:08:00 PM
Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

Not finding it on Google http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof (http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof)  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 09, 2013, 08:17:48 PM
Tracing my steps on streetview I found the following town and crossroads signs

NC-42@NC-50 in Cleveland: http://goo.gl/maps/brnBs
A sample of US-70 in Clayton (just about every cross street has one east of here): http://goo.gl/maps/0FS2e and http://goo.gl/maps/fl8XU

US-70@ Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/UP1Qb
In the shadow of I-95 on Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/OJ9dB
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 09, 2013, 09:18:37 PM
These black and white signs are less common than they were 20 years ago, but still plentiful the further east you are in the state.

One thing I noticed a long time ago is that west of roughly I-77, these signs didn't depict mileage to someplace but instead just the name of the road itself.  This was nearly universal once in the mountains.  One exception I remember from the 1980s is still located in Blowing Rock, for Globe - http://goo.gl/maps/2O3xJ

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 08:19:40 AM
Marc - you may want to head up towards Bellhaven Blvd & Valleydale Rd/ McClure Circle in NW Mecklenburg County.  White destination signs that still have the interlocking NC in it for NC 16.

Not finding it on Google http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof (http://goo.gl/maps/m9rof)  :-/

Go further towards Charlotte to the other intersection with McClure Circle and Valleydale.  It's the intersection with a traffic light and I want to say a gas station.  I think we stopped there for a bathroom/catch up break for the 03 or was it 04 Charlotte Road Meet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on July 10, 2013, 08:36:57 AM
I see the sign, but I don't get it. Were they still using that style in 1986 when the current NC 16 was built?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 09:55:42 AM
I see the sign, but I don't get it. Were they still using that style in 1986 when the current NC 16 was built?

Possibly or they may have just moved an old sign to that location.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2013, 09:59:20 AM
Tracing my steps on streetview I found the following town and crossroads signs

NC-42@NC-50 in Cleveland: http://goo.gl/maps/brnBs
A sample of US-70 in Clayton (just about every cross street has one east of here): http://goo.gl/maps/0FS2e and http://goo.gl/maps/fl8XU

US-70@ Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/UP1Qb
In the shadow of I-95 on Industrial Park Dr.: http://goo.gl/maps/OJ9dB


Sorry I meant town and crossroads like this:

(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3753/9063535796_b826ca37d3.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9063535796/)
Verona (2013) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/9063535796/) by Adam's Journey (http://www.flickr.com/people/adamontheroad/), on Flickr

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 10, 2013, 05:51:17 PM
Go further towards Charlotte to the other intersection with McClure Circle and Valleydale.  It's the intersection with a traffic light and I want to say a gas station.  I think we stopped there for a bathroom/catch up break for the 03 or was it 04 Charlotte Road Meet.

Okay, found it http://goo.gl/maps/qevvj

I will go by hopefully this weekend and take a picture of it close-up, hopefully it will still be there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on July 10, 2013, 11:35:01 PM
I found an NC-style white sign at this intersection today, on old VA 233. Turn 90º east to see it.
http://goo.gl/maps/hpvjm
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 11, 2013, 06:31:33 AM
Don't know if I would classify that as NC-style since Virginia has/had lots of these that are green and white instead of black and white...

Some communities use(d) this style of sign as their street signs.


some others I have found followed by an older green one:

(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/delhartwhitesign.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/oldfortvalleysign.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitebullrun.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitebridlecreek.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whiterixeyville.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitesugargrove.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/white_montpelier.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitesignlakota.jpg)

Mapmikey
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitemarshall.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/whitearcadia.jpg)
(http://www.vahighways.com/oldsigns/bowlinggreen.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on July 11, 2013, 10:28:16 AM
There are a few examples of what Mapmikey posted to be found in SW Virginia. I have photographed a few.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 15, 2013, 08:34:23 PM
Okay, found it http://goo.gl/maps/qevvj

I will go by hopefully this weekend and take a picture of it close-up, hopefully it will still be there.

Took a picture of the sign on Saturday.  I suspect it has been there since the 1950s, SR 2005 is for McClure Circle and yes, if you go almost three miles that direction you will reach the Oak Dale Elementary School.  So after looking at old county maps, NC 16 traversed along Bellhaven Boulevard, so it would cross here and if you took McClure Circle, it would reconnect further west to NC 16 again... though it begs the question why you would take a road TO NC 16 when you are already on NC 16, maybe it was an assurance thing.  Anyway, took a few pics of it, even a close-up of the countless nails, screws, and staples on it.  :-D 

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7338/9297139034_01a851b7ca_n.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/9297139034/)
130713-3436 Charlotte (http://www.flickr.com/photos/washuotaku/9297139034/) by WashuOtaku (http://www.flickr.com/people/washuotaku/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 21, 2013, 12:54:05 AM
Officials believe they know cause of US-441 landslide (http://www.wbir.com/news/article/249676/2/Football-size-landslide-takes-out-part-of-US-441)

Quote
Park officials now believe they know what caused the massive landslide, which took out a football field-sized portion of Newfound Gap Road (US 441) on the North Carolina side. 

Quote
Officials said they found a subsurface spring underneath the landslide site and they aren't quite sure how long its been there.  They said the spring, along with last week's massive amounts of rainfall, contributed to the landslide Wednesday morning, near mile marker 22 between Collins Creek and Webb Overlook.

Quote
"We were unaware of this subsurface spring which causes embankment failure," said Acting Deputy Superintendent Alan Sumeriski.

Quote
Approximately 90,000 cubic yards of dirt, rock and roadway crashed 45-50 feet down the side of the mountain.  Officials surveying the damage said the area is still not stable as debris continues to fall. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on July 27, 2013, 05:19:10 PM
Gallery of aerial photos of the landslide that wiped out NC 194 in Avery County.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170653346453054&set=pb.139130392938683.-2207520000.1374959595.&type=3&theater

In initial photos of the incident, there was a lane left standing, but eventually that fell in too.

There is a short detour around that section that only adds a couple miles, but trucks can't navigate it (to say nothing of Floridians), so they have to take a 14-mile detour. Two homes were also destroyed and some livestock was killed, but no people were injured.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 27, 2013, 07:50:26 PM
Gallery of aerial photos of the landslide that wiped out NC 194 in Avery County.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=170653346453054&set=pb.139130392938683.-2207520000.1374959595.&type=3&theater

In initial photos of the incident, there was a lane left standing, but eventually that fell in too.

There is a short detour around that section that only adds a couple miles, but trucks can't navigate it (to say nothing of Floridians), so they have to take a 14-mile detour. Two homes were also destroyed and some livestock was killed, but no people were injured.

I looked up the NCDOT news release on it, officially southbound is to use US 19E South -> NC 194 North -> US 221 North -> NC 194 North; northbound use NC 181 south -> NC 105 north -> NC 194 south.  But yes, if people use Blevins Creek Road (Old NC 194), locals can get around it.  Thanks for sharing that picture; makes one wonder if they did the best engineering job in the 1960s when they built that section of road, I guess it was a matter of time and water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 17, 2013, 02:13:14 PM
US401 Wake County:
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w102/architect77/blades.png) (http://s174.photobucket.com/user/architect77/media/blades.png.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 21, 2013, 08:38:01 AM
Does anyone know when the new section of I-295 around Fayetteville will open (or opened)? Everything I've read about says it should be open by July 2013, and AFAIK it still isn't open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 21, 2013, 09:09:27 PM
Does anyone know when the new section of I-295 around Fayetteville will open (or opened)? Everything I've read about says it should be open by July 2013, and AFAIK it still isn't open.
Based on the information on the NCDOT Projects Listings page http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/search/details.html#id=2881 (http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/search/details.html#id=2881) only 1 of the current contracts is to be completed this year, this month in fact. The remainder have completion dates either next spring or November 2014. I do not think they'll open any of it until all the contracts are completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DBR96A on August 21, 2013, 10:19:46 PM
So I was looking at North Carolina in my road atlas last night, and it seems to me that there's a lot of limited-access highways that are either redundant or kind of pointless, especially near the Greensboro and Winston-Salem areas. It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.

Do you agree with my assessment? Is it feasible to eliminate some of the highway tangle around some of the larger cities? Just curious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 21, 2013, 10:29:46 PM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DBR96A on August 21, 2013, 11:24:22 PM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 22, 2013, 08:37:45 AM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

The key phrase here is "justifiable to you".  So what about freeway bypasses of the towns of over 20,000 people - is that "justifiable to you".  Or should they be handled by arterial type roads? 

Again just because something appears that way on a map, doesn't mean it to be true.  Drive through old US 311 in High Point and let me know if that freeway bypass and connections to I-40 and I-85 isn't necessary.  Drive through Business 40 in Winston and let me know if they shouldn't have built the freeway bypass to the south.  Let me know how Asheboro doesn't need a US 64/NC 49 bypass.

If there is one point of reasoning I hate is,"Well I saw this on the map and so they should or shouldn't do this."

The overall SHC is a long term goal with many of these items not seeing the light of day for a long time.  US 70 from I-40 to Morehead City sure it's fine right now - but a full freeway bypass of Goldsboro is necessary when you look at the planned growth of the port in Morehead City and the state's plan - albeit very hopeful - for the Global Transpark in Kinston.  Yeah, US 70 could even be an expressway in the rural areas outside of Kinston and Goldsboro - but the plan to have the road a freeway means a full fledged limited access from the Port of Morehead City to I-95 and I-40. 

But to the original point about being too many freeeways in the Triad just because "well, i looked on a road atlas and it just doesn't look right" and assuming that each of the towns are one stoplight especially when I gather you've never been to the Triad is downright absurd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on August 22, 2013, 10:22:40 AM
It also looks like they're trying to connect every town with more than one traffic signal with a limited-access highway.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/StrategicHighwayCorridors.aspx
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf shows the corridors (blue=freeway).

Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

The key phrase here is "justifiable to you".  So what about freeway bypasses of the towns of over 20,000 people - is that "justifiable to you".  Or should they be handled by arterial type roads? 

Again just because something appears that way on a map, doesn't mean it to be true.  Drive through old US 311 in High Point and let me know if that freeway bypass and connections to I-40 and I-85 isn't necessary.  Drive through Business 40 in Winston and let me know if they shouldn't have built the freeway bypass to the south.  Let me know how Asheboro doesn't need a US 64/NC 49 bypass.

If there is one point of reasoning I hate is,"Well I saw this on the map and so they should or shouldn't do this."

The overall SHC is a long term goal with many of these items not seeing the light of day for a long time.  US 70 from I-40 to Morehead City sure it's fine right now - but a full freeway bypass of Goldsboro is necessary when you look at the planned growth of the port in Morehead City and the state's plan - albeit very hopeful - for the Global Transpark in Kinston.  Yeah, US 70 could even be an expressway in the rural areas outside of Kinston and Goldsboro - but the plan to have the road a freeway means a full fledged limited access from the Port of Morehead City to I-95 and I-40. 

But to the original point about being too many freeeways in the Triad just because "well, i looked on a road atlas and it just doesn't look right" and assuming that each of the towns are one stoplight especially when I gather you've never been to the Triad is downright absurd.

I agree. That person has obviously never driven here - or gotten off the interstates on their ride through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 22, 2013, 06:48:52 PM
Interesting map. It still seems like overkill, though. The only new limited-access highway extensions that seem justifiable to me are Charlotte to Wilmington, Greensboro to Fayetteville, and Raleigh to the Outer Banks. The rest of them seem like they'd be adequately taken care of by "arterial" highways.

LOL, you wouldn't say that if you lived in North Carolina.   :happy:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 27, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on August 27, 2013, 10:42:16 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
Currently, this route is signed as Future I-840. We'll see if it will be signed Future I-785 as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 10:55:12 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
WTF? The map on the last page shows it running down US 29 all the way to downtown Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 28, 2013, 08:06:20 AM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)

I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 28, 2013, 12:50:34 PM
A new interstate route in NC as of July 31. NCDOT now has permission to sign the eastern section of I-840 from I-40/85 to US 70, all 2.2 miles of it, also as I-785.

The official documentation here: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_07_31.pdf)
WTF? The map on the last page shows it running down US 29 all the way to downtown Greensboro.

That map is from 1997.  My guess is that the original thought was to send I-785 all the way down 29.  Then it probably occurred to NCDOT that doing that would be costly and time-consuming.

The original NCRoads.com entry for I-785 described the routing as using I-840 like it will be today and the webpage was dated in 2001.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 28, 2013, 03:20:51 PM
Yeah, the original plan for I-785 is to run it down US 29 to I-40/Bus 85 (former I-85 routing at that time). However, it's too expensive due to too many crossroads, tight loops, no shoulders in some places, the frontage roads paralleling too close, and other things.


But, I am right. the 2.2 mile I-840 from I-80/85/Bus 85 up to US 70 should be named I-785 along with I-840. Glad they got it approved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 24, 2013, 11:53:24 AM
New style signs are going up around Watauga Co. prohibiting trucks along NC 194 near Valle Crucis, along with a new sign prohibiting them on Wilson's Ridge Road outside of Boone. The current signs just say "Not recommended for vehicles over 35 ft. in length," but tractor-trailer accidents along 194 continue to be common. Truckers have reported not seeing the signs. Hopefully the new look, along with the "prohibited" language, will reduce accidents.

(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/194-sign.jpg-400x300.jpg)

(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Wilsons-Ridge-Road-sign.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 24, 2013, 01:40:51 PM
Good plan; I'm not sure I'd take my car up 194 between Beech Mountain and Valle Crucis, let alone a semi.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: english si on October 24, 2013, 02:06:20 PM
I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
I'm pretty sure it has.

Or is FHWA kicking up a fuss?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 24, 2013, 06:37:44 PM
Good plan; I'm not sure I'd take my car up 194 between Beech Mountain and Valle Crucis, let alone a semi.

It's definitely not a good idea, but GPSs set for the Banner Elk/Newland/Linville area often lead truckers down that route, especially if they are programmed to give "shortest distance" rather than "fastest time."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2013, 09:22:26 PM
(http://roadspullzone1.wataugaroadscom.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/194-sign.jpg-400x300.jpg)


Punctuation. Learn it, love it, live it. Whoever designed that sign must be female and pregnant because they missed a period - or at the very least, a semicolon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 24, 2013, 10:55:27 PM
I think the MUTCD frowns upon punctuation on signage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 25, 2013, 01:33:07 AM
I think the MUTCD frowns upon punctuation on signage
Yeah, but when your sentence break is in the middle of a line, you need SOMETHING
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2013, 09:21:24 AM
that sign just plain sucks.  I would see that as:

"thru tractor-trailers" - that's me!
"prohibited turn around" - okay, wasn't planning on it.
"and follow truck route" - gonna assume that's forward of here, so forward we go.

and thus, the intent of the sign ends up perfectly inverted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 25, 2013, 03:17:01 PM
that sign just plain sucks.  I would see that as:

"thru tractor-trailers" - that's me!
"prohibited turn around" - okay, wasn't planning on it.
"and follow truck route" - gonna assume that's forward of here, so forward we go.

and thus, the intent of the sign ends up perfectly inverted.

It's worth noting that sign is on the road itself, the same style signs (haven't been out there to see the text) are up before the turn onto that road. So if you're a thru trucker on that route you've already fucked up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 25, 2013, 09:18:16 PM
I have to admit I'm selfishly waiting to learn when I-495 gets approved.
I'm pretty sure it has.

Or is FHWA kicking up a fuss?

Nope, not yet.  NCDOT has to improve the older sections of US 64 first before they sign-off on the new designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 26, 2013, 03:52:42 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 26, 2013, 11:16:23 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?

Not really.  Same rules apply in North Carolina as do in South Carolina on what banner type is used and they are understood for.  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on October 26, 2013, 11:52:42 PM
Okay, what's with the 'OBX' license plates. I've noticed that locals in the Outer Banks always have license plates that say 'OBX' followed by 5 random numbers. Is there a reason for this other than to tell them apart from the locals.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on October 27, 2013, 09:30:02 AM
North Carolina has two geographically oriented license plate series: OBX for Outer Banks and GTP for the Global TransPark (Goldsboro). Each is issued in the license plate offices in the area defined. The numbers are issued serially, but have been issued for years, so the numbers issued are getting large.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 27, 2013, 07:31:04 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?



I am supporting for the removal of Business I-85 along the Greensboro area.. the former routing of I-85 is fully freeway. It should be 3di or just leave it as US 29/70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 12:16:58 PM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 28, 2013, 02:50:11 PM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?



I am supporting for the removal of Business I-85 along the Greensboro area.. the former routing of I-85 is fully freeway. It should be 3di or just leave it as US 29/70.
However, let's keep in mind that removing Business I-40 in Winston-Salem would be a tough challenge, as there are no even 3di's left, assuming that I-540 is changed to I-640. US 421 would do just fine.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 02:54:30 PM
If Business 40 were pulled, I'd be fine with them reverting it to US 421
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 28, 2013, 05:37:06 PM
However, let's keep in mind that removing Business I-40 in Winston-Salem would be a tough challenge, as there are no even 3di's left, assuming that I-540 is changed to I-640. US 421 would do just fine.

The problem is that the old I-40 route through Winston-Salem is not currently interstate grade worthy and they are doing the best they can to upgrade this.  Around 2015 or so (don't quote me) they are going shut down an entire section of Business I-40 in downtown Winston-Salem to raze all the bridges and redo the entire stretch; yes its that bad that they have to shutdown part of the highway for a couple of years to rebuild it.  That will happen soon after upgrades are completed along US 52/NC 8.  After they fix everything on Business I-40 after another 10-15 years, we can revisit it in becoming a 3di of either I-40 or I-74.  US 421 already overlaps the route, so that's a mute point.

As for Business I-85, the new signage at exit 87 appears to put it at a backseat to US 29/52/70 (and soon I-285).  I saw a Business I-85 sign to itself saying its at same exit... maybe the state is moving away from it since its putting it on its own sign and not the main signage with the others, but that's only a guess.

You all neglected Business I-95 in Fayetteville, which is completely overlapped with US 301.  To my understanding, it exists because businesses wanted to keep some kind of through route as the main highway bypassed the city.  I suspect that is the same reason for Business I-40 and Business I-85 routes in NC and obviously true for Business I-85 in Spartanburg, SC (a snapshot of what interstates were like in the late 1950s, thanks to never being improved).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 28, 2013, 05:54:44 PM
My main gripe with Business 85 in Greensboro is that it partially overlaps I-40, which is rather nonsensical. Also, I think Business 85 between US 52 and the Urban Loop is really long to be a 'Business' route, why not sign US 29/70 as an Alt I-85 similar to how Wisconsin signs Alt I-43 and I-39?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 28, 2013, 07:59:13 PM
The problem is that the old I-40 route through Winston-Salem is not currently interstate grade worthy

But it was when it was built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2013, 08:04:17 PM
Doesn't matter anymore.  Since BUSINESS I-40 was dropped, it can't be grandfathered.  So for NCDOT to bring it back, it'll have to bring it up to CURRENT Interstate standards before FHWA will approve.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 01:40:40 AM
I'd like to see North Carolina get rid of some of their bannered routes. Like Business I-85 going through Greensboro, High Point, and Lexington. Would it be simpler to drop the Business 85 shields and leave it as US 29/70? Or Business and Alternate 74 (which turn into one another between Maxton and I-95), does having so many business, bypass, alt routes get confusing?

I disagree with all of this. Having Business 85 and Business 40 makes sense, and is very helpful - even for those who aren't road geeks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 01:42:10 AM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.

Disagree with this as well.

I also wish they had left US-29A and US-70A on High Point Road in Greensboro, and not removed NC-6, as well as kept Business US-311 through High Point even if High Point itself wanted it removed. Made no sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on October 29, 2013, 02:14:24 PM
My main gripe with Business 85 in Greensboro is that it partially overlaps I-40, which is rather nonsensical. Also, I think Business 85 between US 52 and the Urban Loop is really long to be a 'Business' route, why not sign US 29/70 as an Alt I-85 similar to how Wisconsin signs Alt I-43 and I-39?
Business I-80 in Sacramento also overlaps I-305, but the latter is a hidden route, so that is a moot point there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 29, 2013, 03:03:30 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 29, 2013, 05:30:32 PM
I was also looking at US 70 around Selma, where a Business, Bypass, Alternate and the mainline US 70 exist around each other is a relatively close area. To me, it'd make more sense if they renumbered 70A and Business 70 as an NC x70, keep the US 70 mainline on the freeway around I-95 and turn the current mainline into an unsigned spur with just trailblazers to East/West US 70.

Disagree with this as well.

I also wish they had left US-29A and US-70A on High Point Road in Greensboro, and not removed NC-6, as well as kept Business US-311 through High Point even if High Point itself wanted it removed. Made no sense.

They all still exist according the Bing Triad Area map NCDOT uses for its TIMS traffic management website.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 29, 2013, 05:51:56 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?

Because North Carolina never used Business Spurs; NCDOT probably feels every business route should loop back in some way.  Though they are known to hide business loops like US 19/23 BUS in Asheville overlapping with I-240 and US 64 BUS overlapping with I-440.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on October 29, 2013, 07:31:49 PM
True, and if they chose to sign I-305, Business 80 could/should be truncated to between I-80 and 305, same goes with Business 85 and I-40. At the very least, why can't Business 85 be truncated to the former I-40/85 junction at Death Valley?

Because North Carolina never used Business Spurs; NCDOT probably feels every business route should loop back in some way.  Though they are known to hide business loops like US 19/23 BUS in Asheville overlapping with I-240 and US 64 BUS overlapping with I-440.

I think it might have been possible that if NCDOT hadn't originally plan on putting I-40 on the Southern Greensboro Loop and renumbering current I-40 as Business Loop 40 through Greensboro, then they may have considered having Business 85 be a spur ending at I-40. As it was, though, there was going to be symmetry with I-40 and I-85 running along the loop and BUS 40/85 running through Greensboro. Now you just have I-40 multiplexed with the eastern part of BUS 85.

BUS 85 is still a major route in the Triad, even split into two parts. They are constantly working on upgrades on BUS 85 on its multiplex with US 29/70. I use it more frequently than I-85 for local trips, and the traffic is definitely there. It's less of a decision now since they opened I-74 / US-311 between BUS 85 and I-85, as you can use that to cut back and forth between the two, even if that doesn't make too much logistical sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on November 29, 2013, 08:12:02 PM
NewsObserver.com: Raleigh mulls making I-540 a toll road (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/26/3410198/raleigh-mulls-making-i-540-a-toll.html)

Quote
The northern 540 Outer Loop will have to be widened in coming years to handle its growing traffic load, and the Raleigh City Council wants to consider transforming it into an eight-lane, 26-mile toll road.

Quote
Meanwhile, traffic engineers are considering quicker action to install ramp meters — special stop-and-go signals used on freeways from New York to San Diego — that could smooth out the rush-hour glut of cars entering Interstate 540.

Quote
A consultant study commissioned this month will help the state Department of Transportation decide whether to deploy North Carolina’s first ramp meters on I-540, for westbound drivers coming down the on-ramps at Falls of Neuse, Six Forks, Creedmoor and Leesville roads.

Quote
Tolls are seeing increased use as a way to pay for added freeway lanes — often called “managed lanes”  — as on an I-77 project underway in Charlotte. They make money from drivers willing to pay for a faster trip at times when the toll-free lanes are congested. Along with toll collection for most drivers, managed lanes usually include toll-free trips for buses and carpools.

Quote
With all-electronic toll collection, a technology now in use on the 18-mile Triangle Expressway section of 540 in western Wake County, DOT can build separate toll lanes without the old expense of barriers and tollbooths. Toll rates can fluctuate during rush hour, rising or falling as freeway congestion gets worse or better.

Quote
Local planners have vacillated in recent years about their approach to paying for an I-540 widening: toll all eight lanes, or just the two added lanes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 30, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
NewsObserver.com: Raleigh mulls making I-540 a toll road (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/26/3410198/raleigh-mulls-making-i-540-a-toll.html)

Quote
The northern 540 Outer Loop will have to be widened in coming years to handle its growing traffic load, and the Raleigh City Council wants to consider transforming it into an eight-lane, 26-mile toll road.

It's a good thing the city of Raleigh has no say on how a state road should be.  Also the nagging fact that its an Interstate and cannot be converted into a toll road without both the state and federal governments signing-off on it, which hasn't happened yet anywhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 01, 2013, 01:43:49 PM
Quote
It's a good thing the city of Raleigh has no say on how a state road should be.  Also the nagging fact that its an Interstate and cannot be converted into a toll road without both the state and federal governments signing-off on it, which hasn't happened yet anywhere.

This one they might, since I-540 was added as non-chargeable Interstate...no Interstate Construction funds were used in its construction.  If nothing else, Federal law would certainly allow tolling any new lanes added to I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 02, 2013, 11:52:16 PM
NewsObserver.com: NCDOT gets tougher with TriEx toll deadbeats (http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/02/3426945/road-worrier-ncdot-gets-tougher.html)

Quote
RALEIGH – State toll collectors are about to get tough with deadbeats who don’t pay their bills for trips on the 18-mile Triangle Expressway.

Quote
Starting next year, 73,000 TriEx drivers with delinquent toll bills will find collections agencies hounding them to pay up. And they will be blocked from renewing their automobile registrations with the state Division of Motor Vehicles.

Quote
The state Department of Transportation said it is taking these new steps to collect delinquent tolls from drivers who are at least three months late in paying for their TriEx trips. The delinquent bills include tolls worth more than $815,000 — plus $3.4 million in late fees and civil penalties.

Quote
These are folks who receive toll bills in the mail, based on photos of their license plates. DOT levies the late fees, which pile up fast at $6 per month, and the $25 penalties to prod drivers to pay their bills and to open N.C. QuickPass transponder accounts. Transponder users pay automatically, with tolls at a lower rate, and DOT saves the expense of billing them by mail.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 03, 2013, 02:04:35 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 12, 2013, 06:58:31 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 14, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
W T F:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 14, 2013, 07:21:14 PM
NCDOT Communications seems to have hired a hipster.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 14, 2013, 10:41:52 PM
What has been seen cannot be unseen.   :ded:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 15, 2013, 12:19:33 AM
So children, was any useful information gathered from the video we just watched?

- If you travel to the Yadkin River Bridge Replacement project, you'll have an epileptic breakdown?

That is correct.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2013, 07:53:54 AM
@1:22: Bouncy trucks are fun and not deadly!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 15, 2013, 09:10:28 AM
W T F:

Regarding the Fin at the end - did NCDOT hire someone that used to work for Transports Québec?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 15, 2013, 04:12:20 PM
Please......make...............the..............seizures..........stop........
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 15, 2013, 04:35:40 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
NCDOT's dredging job seems to have done the trick, the Bonner Bridge is back open as of 4PM this afternoon:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 15, 2013, 05:30:21 PM
WTKR is reporting (http://wtkr.com/2013/12/03/bonner-bridge-to-close-immediately/) that NCDOT is closing the NC 12 "Bonner Bridge" over Oregon Inlet today due to ongoing safety concerns related to pier scouring.  The story notes that four ferryboats are being dispatched to establish an emergency ferry service while the bridge is closed.

Last updates I've seen say that the emergency repairs (dumping tons of sand in front of the piers) seem to have done the job even better than expected, and the bridge could possibly reopen as early as next week, as opposed to the worst case of March.
NCDOT's dredging job seems to have done the trick, the Bonner Bridge is back open as of 4PM this afternoon:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=9142)
Worth noting in the article that repairs are ongoing to continue strengthening the bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crazy Volvo Guy on December 15, 2013, 10:38:58 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 15, 2013, 11:39:15 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.
Yep.
How to fish: http://www.google.com/search?q=pzHwff8Leow
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 16, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
Rode the Currituck-Knotts Island ferry this weekend.  NC 615 is now signed on the Currituck side.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 16, 2013, 06:09:16 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 16, 2013, 07:59:38 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)
Whoever created this GIF is entitled to a free pie.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dr Frankenstein on December 16, 2013, 09:29:18 PM
dafuq did they put in that ProStar's tank?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on December 16, 2013, 09:59:04 PM
I really hope someone mirrored that Yadkin River Bridge video before they took it down.

And I wish my truck could do that

(http://i.imgur.com/kHeN5mf.gif)

I'm speechless. This almost makes less sense than Alanland.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 02, 2014, 09:06:01 AM
Took a New Years half-day trip into northeastern NC.  A few notes:

- There's now a TRUCK NC 308 posted in Windsor, following US 13/BYPASS 17 and US 17 on the west/south sides of town.
- A widening project is underway on US 13/158 from their northern junction to at least some point south of NC 137 (I turned off at NC 137).  North of NC 137, the new lanes will be the future northbound lanes, and look close to opening to two-way traffic so that the existing southbound lanes can be rehabbed.  South of NC 137, it looks like the new lanes will be the future southbound lanes.
- Related to the widening project, the northern US 13/US 158 junction has been moved about 1/4 mile north of the old intersection....the relocated intersection is now open to traffic.  The only mapping entity that currently shows it is Google satellite, which shows the tree clearing for the new intersection.
- NC 111 and NC 122 are concurrent on both sides of Tarboro, yet take different streets off of ALT US 64.
(EDIT) - The planned NC 186 extension west and north to NC 48 is not signed yet.  In fact, the planned routing between NC 46 and NC 48, along Lebanon Church Rd/James Jones Rd is closed for reconstruction, presumably to bring it to state primary standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on January 15, 2014, 12:38:23 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 15, 2014, 12:57:32 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
http://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CarolinaPaladin on January 15, 2014, 04:59:58 PM
Is the long term plan for US-13 is a four lane facility from Windsor to Suffolk, Viriginia?
http://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPB%20%20Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors/Strategic%20Highway%20Corridors%20Vision%20Plan.pdf

US-13 is designated as facility needing upgrade to an expressway.  I do not know if that is an expressway with controlled access.  I could see US-13 as a four lane divided highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 15, 2014, 05:36:01 PM
US-13 is designated as facility needing upgrade to an expressway.  I do not know if that is an expressway with controlled access.  I could see US-13 as a four lane divided highway.

Expressways in North Carolina are basically limited access, not controlled access.  An example is US 74 (non-freeway sections) throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on February 07, 2014, 04:38:13 PM
The Virginian-Pilot/HamptonRoads.com: Hearings on N.C. ferry tolls get off to a feisty start (http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/hearings-nc-ferry-tolls-get-feisty-start)

Quote
Tolls on what have been free ferries to North Carolina’s Knotts Island and Ocracoke could be coming in spite of public protests.

Quote
The first of seven scheduled public hearings this week and next was held Tuesday in Knotts Island. An agitated crowd that nearly filled an elementary school gym spoke for more than two hours against starting tolls.

Quote
“I do not believe the residents of this island can afford this tax toll,”  resident Terry King said. “I already pay taxes.”

Quote
Hearings are scheduled in Hatteras and Ocracoke next week. New or higher tolls are proposed for all seven of North Carolina’s ferry routes, the second-largest system in the nation.

Quote
New tolls would range from $1 for a pedestrian to $28 for a large multi-axle truck. The average passenger vehicle would be charged $7. Annual passes would be available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on February 07, 2014, 07:43:08 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 07, 2014, 07:49:24 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

I think they'd be better off leaving it as-is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 10, 2014, 10:05:18 AM
Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

LOL, no... they redid the border (which was a twenty year project to keep costs low and a lot of research) to retrace the steps when they drew the border 300 years ago.  Since that time, markers in the field have been removed or buried and land deeds have been mistaken.  Some people may not see the value of knowing what is yours and not yours, but making a correction now saves the states making even bigger corrections in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: formulanone on February 10, 2014, 05:50:15 PM
Lesson should have always been: Don't put anything on a border where someone lives or pays taxes. Especially one set by someone who wasn't even a colonist, it seems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on February 11, 2014, 09:20:39 PM
Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

LOL, no... they redid the border (which was a twenty year project to keep costs low and a lot of research) to retrace the steps when they drew the border 300 years ago.  Since that time, markers in the field have been removed or buried and land deeds have been mistaken.  Some people may not see the value of knowing what is yours and not yours, but making a correction now saves the states making even bigger corrections in the future.

There is so much precedent in border cases of keeping what is currently marked vs. what was originally legislated. That's really the sane way to deal with this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on March 15, 2014, 08:42:08 PM
http://charlotte.twcnews.com/content/news/704426/carolinas-border-closer-to-moving-over-homes--businesses/

Someone fell asleep drawing the NC/SC state lines, 300 years ago!!!

The first thing I thought of was whether or not this will screw up Carrowinds' entrance plaza.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 12, 2014, 08:56:32 AM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)

Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Tom958 on April 12, 2014, 11:07:25 PM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)

Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.

So, what's the plan at the US 29/601 interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 13, 2014, 11:12:21 AM
Good news everybody, NCDOT has just awarded a $187 million contract to Blythe Construction to complete the widening of I-85 between NC 73 (exit 55) to the Cabarrus-Rowan county line.  Here's the news article: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/04/12/4836402/dot-awards-contract-for-i-85-widening.html)
Construction is expected to begin in Spring, 2015, completing in December, 2017.
So, what's the plan at the US 29/601 interchange?

The article says it will be "improved upon," which I don't know what that means.  I guess we will have to wait till more details emerge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 13, 2014, 11:24:55 AM
I suspect the US 29/601 interchange might be turned into a diverging diamond interchange. I won't be surprised if it is because 2/3 of the interchanges are being transformed into DDI along I-85: (Exit 52 and Exit 55).  By the way, 8 lanes of I-85 is awesome and relief to drive on. I'm glad they are widening it all the way to Exit 68 in phrases.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on April 13, 2014, 12:12:27 PM
I suspect the US 29/601 interchange might be turned into a diverging diamond interchange. I won't be surprised if it is because 2/3 of the interchanges are being transformed into DDI along I-85: (Exit 52 and Exit 55).  By the way, 8 lanes of I-85 is awesome and relief to drive on. I'm glad they are widening it all the way to Exit 68 in phrases.

A DDI is the plan for that interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: I85Roadrunner on April 13, 2014, 01:38:01 PM
This part of the widening of I-85 is probably going to be the most involved project of all due to all the bridges, especially the Norfolk Southern Railway overpass.  All the bridges have no room under the supports.  I am figuring the reason for the rail crossing just to the west of the interstate (railroad north of the interstate, since I work for NS) I would imagine if for a realignment of the tracks for a new railroad bridge.  This should be a interesting project to see progress especially with 4 bridges right on top of each other almost.

Carter
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 26, 2014, 05:17:45 PM
Went on an ad-hoc storm chase yesterday into northeastern NC (sadly, only thing I spotted was a nail in my rear left tire).  But in the process of racing down to get into position, I noticed further progress on the US 13/US 158 widening northeast of Winton.  The northern few miles, north of NC 137, are now on the new alignment as reconstruction of the old lanes begins.  The future U-turn locations are now more obvious…NCDOT is definitely instituting its Superstreet concepts into new 4-lane highway construction.  Progress continues on the new bridge over the Chowan River (future northbound lanes)…from what I could see, looks like the bridge deck is being worked on.  There will definitely be an interchange at 13/158/NC 45, with US 13 bridging over 158/45.  I couldn't tell what type of interchange, though, whether it'll be a standard diamond or a partially folded-diamond with a loop in one quadrant.

I also discovered a new construction project:  work is well underway to widen US 158 to 4 lanes between Winton and the Murfreesboro bypass.  On the easternmost ~3 miles near Winton, the new lanes are the future westbound lanes.  There will be a new alignment across Potecasi Creek, south of the existing alignment, and tying back into existing US 158 near Mt Tabor Church Rd.  Another new alignment section occurs near Mapleton, just southwest/south of the existing alignment, with the existing alignment being retained as a frontage road.  West of Mapleton over to the start of the existing 4-lane Murfreesboro bypass, the new lanes will be the future eastbound lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 16, 2014, 01:35:18 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on May 16, 2014, 02:11:35 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.

I think the overall plan is to connect Charlotte with Wilmington, with a freeway (or even possibly an interstate). This bypass, along with improvements on US 74 between Wingate and Rockingham, would link I-485 to I-74. Conversely, the Shelby US 74 Bypass in Cleveland County will do the same with linking Asheville and Charlotte.

Also, I do believe the state has plans of improving the existing US 74 in Union County, with widening, adding sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 26, 2014, 05:16:38 PM
The FHA issued a Record of Decision, this week, for the Monroe Bypass.  NCDOT believes they will be able to start construction in two weeks from now on the 19.7-mile toll road from the Mecklenburg county line to Marshville.

www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/05/16/4914470/nc-gets-go-ahead-for-work-on-monroe.html)

My opinion, would still be cheaper to widen and implement super-street style on the existing road.

I think you're underestimating the cost of buying up the private property along US 74 in Monroe and Indian Trail that would be required to upgrade the existing highway.  That's probably the main reason why it's cheaper to just build a completely new roadway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on June 14, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
Here's a map of the various road projects submitted for funding:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=defb244d156a4722a0cd56d2a4c97df2

Looks like many of the major projects in Charlotte, Triangle, and Triad scored very well with this new funding system. Hopefully many of these projects start construction within the next ten years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 14, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Here's a map of the various road projects submitted for funding:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=defb244d156a4722a0cd56d2a4c97df2

Looks like many of the major projects in Charlotte, Triangle, and Triad scored very well with this new funding system. Hopefully many of these projects start construction within the next ten years.

Keep in mind, the STI is still being updated with local projects and will be revised several more times before it becomes official sometime next year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on June 14, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
I am looking at Winston-Salem.  Each road has a number like H090938-A and H090938-B on US-158.  How can I get more specific information on that number?

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 14, 2014, 10:10:33 PM
^^^  I figured it out.  I just click on the number.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2014, 10:31:58 PM
NCDOT has proposed (but not yet finalized) using NC 555 for the All-American Freeway and Owen Dr in Fayetteville.  The designation, if approved, would run from Wilmington Hwy (old NC 87) just east of NC 87 to the front gate at Fort Bragg.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Request%20Form%20140516%20SIGNED.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 25, 2014, 06:38:04 AM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 25, 2014, 08:43:35 AM
Mike,

There's precedent with NC 452.  If they really wanted to, They could sign NC 472 along Aviation from 540 to Globe Road.

--Adam
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 25, 2014, 10:32:35 AM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on June 25, 2014, 10:34:51 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 25, 2014, 11:05:39 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
That may be an error on the part of the person who created the link on the NCDOT Route Change page.  There are a few errors like this throughout the site.

The June 2014 STIP refers to this part of the highway as Future I-74.  The link from the route change page shows a map but I don't see any route label.

When they put out the actual approved change document to establish the primary designation for this route (as they did with NC 452) then we will know if NC 74 is the intended designation.

Mapmikey


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on June 25, 2014, 04:18:08 PM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?
And bike route 74.
http://www.bikely.com/maps/bike-path/Bike-Route-74
 :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 25, 2014, 05:09:23 PM
Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?

I believe in the 1960s, California had US-40 (about to be decommissioned), I-40 (built in several places) and legislatively defined CA-40, signed as US-66, over the old 66 connecting the segments of freeway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 26, 2014, 03:41:18 PM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.
That may be an error on the part of the person who created the link on the NCDOT Route Change page.  There are a few errors like this throughout the site.

The June 2014 STIP refers to this part of the highway as Future I-74.  The link from the route change page shows a map but I don't see any route label.

When they put out the actual approved change document to establish the primary designation for this route (as they did with NC 452) then we will know if NC 74 is the intended designation.

Mapmikey



So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 26, 2014, 06:11:24 PM

So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?

No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 09:29:57 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.

Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 27, 2014, 10:29:37 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.

Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.


It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 27, 2014, 10:09:16 PM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.

Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 10:16:54 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.

Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 10:33:09 AM
So this means that I-274 must be completed as well as the eastern half of the beltway that I-74 will go onto?
No, the Eastern half is the only (partially at best) funded portion and most important because it will be I-74 eventually. The Western Belt (Future I-274 or whatever number they agree on) is way off.
Honestly, I don't think the western section will be Future I-274 anymore.  NCDOT only briefly used in planning maps in the early 2000s, but has since kept it unlabeled along that stretch.  Officially on the books, since 1999, it's designated as NC 452.
It might be like that because it will be built in pieces too and is just a placeholder (and not being sure of how soon I-74 will be official through there). No need to submit a request for interstate designation until there is one there LOL. This would follow what happened with I-74 in Surry County (remember NC 752?), Raleigh (NC 540 Toll), Fayetteville (NC 295), and Wilmington (NC 140). All just placeholders.
Do we have any details on NC 140 yet?  I hear it's a place holder, but no solid proof on NCDOT or on the field yet.  :confused:
James Carter posted photos on Facebook of new signage at the US 17 interchange with the new freeway which show NC 140 shields. Those signs were then covered up.

(http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u266/washuotaku/1364874682852_zps18fe05f3.png) (http://s170.photobucket.com/user/washuotaku/media/1364874682852_zps18fe05f3.png.html)
Unacceptable!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 28, 2014, 11:38:23 AM
Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 28, 2014, 11:46:20 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 05:29:43 PM
Speaking of placeholder NC route numbers, why does the Goldsboro Bypass (Future US 70) have the placeholder NC 44, but the Sanford Bypass (Future US 421) does not?
NC 44 is signed. It even has milemarkers with little NC 44 shields on it. But it doesn't act as a real bypass yet.
The Sanford Bypass is labeled as NC 87 Bypass on the County maps, but is not signed in the field. It just has destination signs, no shields. It connects US 1 to US 421 and NC 87, which serves as a viable bypass of Sanford now.

The Sanford Bypass is to be designated as US 421 when the final section is completed. 
From NCDOT, a colored map - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20US%20421%20Lee%20130116.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Map%20US%20421%20Lee%20130116.pdf)

However, you are also right, here is the official route change processed in August 20, 2013:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_08_20.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_08_20.pdf)

So here is my guess, they are waiting to complete the final section and then sign the whole route all at once with US 421/NC 87 BYP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 28, 2014, 05:31:08 PM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

Score one for Google Streetview.  I'm surprised those weren't covered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 02, 2014, 02:56:15 AM
Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 10, 2014, 08:52:47 PM
As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on July 10, 2014, 08:59:39 PM
Let me guess, this happened @ I-77 Exit #28, right?

The best part of that video is the comments section. Everyone is going on about how complicated the intersection is. I wanna chime in with my own two cents but I know it's a waste of time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 13, 2014, 11:01:40 AM
As someone who grew up close to the current I-74/US 74 concurrency, I'll chime in with some thoughts on the monstrosity that currently exists:

There's no doubt that a freeway was needed in the Lumberton, NC area. The two lane road that ran through Robeson County was incredibly dangerous, congested and a pain in the ass for locals to transverse or even travel short distances on. A freeway basically took traffic off of local roads and made it easier to get around for everyone.

Of course, the route and the way it was executed is so mind-numbingly stupid that it boggles my mind that it got to the point of being built. If I were in charge, I would routed I-74 from Asheville to Wilmington. I would've had I-74 start at a junction with I-40 and end again at an extended I-140 in Wilmington. Given its start and end points, you could probably number it I-340 but a 500+ mile long 3di would be a bit much, I would instead probably just give it I-34.

Asheville to Wilmington would connect a lot of the cities in southern NC. I had to drive from Charlotte to Fayetteville and was struck by how there isn't a really good connection there. US 74 to I-95 involves going through some small towns with frequent stop lights. Taking an east-west interstate to I-95 would've been quicker. There's also no direct interstate route to the southeastern NC beaches from Charlotte, it's honestly easier to get to Myrtle Beach than our own beaches. You would think that NCDOT would want to encourage people from Charlotte to spend their money on the Carolina coast.

Cities in the state are usually well connected but I'm astonished by how relatively difficult it is to get from Charlotte to Fayetteville or Wilmington.




I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 14, 2014, 06:46:28 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on July 14, 2014, 10:23:12 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:

Wilmington: Getting the shaft from the state government since 1898.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: andy3175 on August 04, 2014, 01:01:27 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on August 04, 2014, 08:50:37 AM
Jan 2014 GMSV shows NC 140 posting on US 74-76 eastbound...

http://goo.gl/maps/Sd84i

Mapmikey

I had to look twice at the cardinal direction for NC 140. So NC 140 "west" actually heads south to US 17. I wonder if they will consider shifting cardinal direction signage for the route, perhaps once they've connected the whole thing together with I-140 so that the last leg between US 74-76 and US 17 south is signed as north-south.
I 140 is signed East/West. Since NC 140 is Future I 140, it should be signed the same as I 140, so they won't have to change all of the signage when the roads connect. They just have to swap out or overlay the NC 140 shields with I 140 shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 04, 2014, 02:09:24 PM
It's no different than I-40 going straight north south for it's last, say, 100 miles lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on August 04, 2014, 02:28:11 PM
I don't like the routing of I-74 through NC as well, and also believes it should be changed. (Keep I-73 because it is pretty much the only interstate out of the two that NC continues working on) The section from I-73 to I-40 can be easily be 3di such as I-273 or something like that. I would build a interstate to connect Asheville, Charlotte, Rockingham and Wilmington and call it I-28 or I-3X something.

I believe the state is doing that, but since it's not considered a federal designated route for an interstate, the state has to build it with funds available... which takes it a long time.  When the routing is mostly completed, they will likely make it an interstate.  First jigsaw that must complete first is the new Shelby Bypass, which they already started working on around Mooresboro.  Once Columbus to Gastonia is freeway grade, they will likely request a I-x26 along it.  When freeway bypasses and connectors are completed east of Charlotte, then talk of a new I-xx may be discussed.

However, I have a feeling instead of the prefer routing between Asheville to Wilmington, they will instead veer northeast along US 1 to Sanford --> Raleigh, replace I-495 to Rocky Mount --> Williamston --> Elizabeth City --> Virginia Beach.  Ta-da... screw Wilmington.  :happy:
Hey, that's the routing of I-36 from Swamphen's old website!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 06, 2014, 05:18:11 PM
US appeals panel reverses Bonner Bridge work - http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/us-appeals-panel-reverses-bonner-bridge-work/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter (http://wavy.com/2014/08/06/us-appeals-panel-reverses-bonner-bridge-work/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday unanimously rejected North Carolina’s plan to replace a crucial Outer Banks bridge without rerouting a state highway away from a wildlife refuge.

The dispute centers on a plan to replicate the existing 2.5-mile Bonner Bridge across Oregon Inlet at a cost of $216 million. The bridge is the only span connecting the mainland to Hatteras Island and was designed to last 30 years when built in 1963.

Construction has been blocked by a lawsuit by environmental groups, who favor a 17-mile bridge that would bypass the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge. The route favored by environmentalists would require building the second-longest bridge in the United States at a cost of more than $1 billion, state transportation officials said.

Environmentalists counter that changing the route would also help avoid recurring problems with the current road, which is frequently rendered impassable by water and sand kicked up by storms.

“At the heart of this case are the past and future of the Outer Banks,”  Judge James Wynn wrote for the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. “The effects of time threaten the structural integrity of the Bonner Bridge, while large storms and changing coastal conditions threaten the viability of the non-elevated portions of North Carolina Highway 12 south of the Bonner Bridge.”

The appeals court overruled a federal judge’s order last September allowing North Carolina an exception to laws protecting a wildlife refuge.

Opponents argued the state’s replacement plan leaves out the cost of moving or maintaining about 12 miles of N.C. 12 through the wildlife refuge. The highway has been breached by new inlets twice in the past several years. Environmentalists said the shorter bridge will be useless without additional infrastructure construction.

The road was closed for three days early last month after waves churned by Hurricane Arthur caused a small section of the fragile roadway to buckle.

The bridge was closed for nearly two weeks in December because sand had washed away from the bridge supports. That closing led to a series of broadsides by the state’s top Republican leaders against the environmental lawsuit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 17, 2014, 03:03:30 PM
Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 17, 2014, 09:11:42 PM
Governor McCrory is pushing to upgrade three routes to interstate standards in North Carolina, along with other major transportation projects. This includes converting US 74 into an interstate between Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington; US 70 from I-40 to New Bern; and US 64 and US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

http://www.ncdot.gov/ncvision25/

It's all good stuff and a road geek wet dream, but having a vision and implementing it are two different things.  It was only a couple of Governors ago that they wanted to extend I-20 into Wilmington and now you can't find any documentation on NCDOT's website even hinting that was a plan.   :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 17, 2014, 11:22:14 PM
In an odd quirk of NC politics, Gov. Jim Martin campaigned on extending I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington and won.

Promising interstate highways seems to be a good campaign strategy in NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on September 19, 2014, 06:06:05 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 19, 2014, 10:10:44 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadrunner75 on September 19, 2014, 10:38:26 PM
Has anyone seen a diagram, or at least a detailed description, of the proposed changes to roads (i.e. NC 87/24, Murchison Road, etc.) at Fort Bragg? Apparently they want to close current 87/24 through the base and reroute it onto 210/Murchison Road (which explains the seemingly overkill upgrades), but what about the northern tie-in? How much of the road, if any, will be left as local access? I also heard that they want to build an interchange on Murchison at Randolph Street. Is this true?
This has some information:
http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/04_Transportation.pdf (http://www.bracrtf.com/documents/04_Transportation.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 19, 2014, 11:13:49 PM
...US 17 from I-95 to Hampton Roads, linking the Triangle to the Virginia Beach metro.

US 17 and I-95 run completely parallel to each other throughout NC, so do you mean from US 64 intersection (Williamston area) and north?

Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 20, 2014, 01:38:39 AM
NC 555 being the designation for the All-American Freeway in Fayetteville. NCDOT is also reserving NC 74 for the Eastern Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway. The designation will be used for completed sections, the first between Business 40 and US 158, until the entire Beltway is completed and becomes part of I-74.

Would this be the first instance of one state having a state route, US route and Interstate route all with the same number?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/search/query.htm?Route=System&search=69
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hawk07 on October 15, 2014, 01:12:02 PM
According to the Wilmington Star-News, the N.C. Department of Transportation will open the southern section of the U.S. 17 Wilmington Bypass, also known as Interstate 140, on Thursday.  The completion date for the entire Bypass is late in 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on October 15, 2014, 01:34:04 PM

Be careful about adjusting the subject line. From what I've been told, we try not to do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 15, 2014, 11:09:11 PM
According to the Wilmington Star-News, the N.C. Department of Transportation will open the southern section of the U.S. 17 Wilmington Bypass, also known as Interstate 140, on Thursday.  The completion date for the entire Bypass is late in 2017.
The link to the story: http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141015/ARTICLES/141019822/1092/ARTICLES?Title=Southern-section-of-Wilmington-bypass-to-open (http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20141015/ARTICLES/141019822/1092/ARTICLES?Title=Southern-section-of-Wilmington-bypass-to-open)

The new section will be signed as NC 140 until the next segment is completed in 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on October 16, 2014, 09:04:55 AM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 16, 2014, 07:57:10 PM
NC 140 between Winnabow and Leland opened today, that is all.   :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on October 20, 2014, 08:20:45 PM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
Those were there when I drove through in early Spetember.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 23, 2014, 10:45:43 AM
Does everyone have pictures of the newly opened section of NC 140?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: geocachingpirate on November 07, 2014, 11:15:18 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on November 13, 2014, 05:39:02 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on November 19, 2014, 10:20:27 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.

Who wants to place bets on when the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway will be started?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on November 20, 2014, 08:13:54 PM
http://www.wxii12.com/news/contract-awarded-for-first-leg-of-winstonsalem-northern-beltway/29597882

My prediction for when all of the beltway is completed:  May 2032

I'll take $5 dollars for the OVER on that.

Who wants to place bets on when the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway will be started?

Probably before they start tolling I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 20, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
Probably before they start tolling I-95.

The whole tolling I-95 discussion seems to have gone away in the last year.  The current STIPs identify all of I-95 needing widening, but not to be funded by tolls.  I guess their was simply no political support for it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DSS5 on November 23, 2014, 08:09:42 AM
Still waiting for news on when in 2015 the Business 40 shutdown will happen in Winston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 05, 2014, 07:03:10 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 05, 2014, 08:23:05 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

US 74 (between Sardis Road and I-485) will be a freeway/expressway... in other words, there will be interchanges but still have access to business like the already existing section.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 14, 2014, 12:21:46 AM
Looking at the scope of work for that section of US 74 in the NCDOT STI pdf, it notes that they want to build the road with full control access, rather than partial. Considering that parallel roads will be built along side Independence as part of the project, it doesn't make much sense to allow businesses access to the road, when they will be connected with side roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 22, 2014, 04:30:22 PM
WNCN.COM: McCrory to propose new NC road-building sources (http://www.wncn.com/story/27681962/mccrory-to-propose-new-nc-road-building-sources)

Quote
Gov. Pat McCrory and North Carolina legislators praised each other for the new method they approved last year to fund transportation projects they say is based not on who you know but more on reducing gridlock and creating jobs.

Quote
The result, the state Department of Transportation says, is efficiencies to fund 300 additional projects in its first 10-year road-building proposal released this month under new evaluation formulas.

Quote
"Everybody understood that we needed to get politics out of the road and transportation decision-making business," Transportation Secretary Tony Tata said.

Quote
There will be new political pressure in 2015 upon GOP legislative leaders and the Republican governor to locate tens of billions of dollars over the next generation to pay for needed but yet-funded projects. McCrory has said he'll offer options and a recommendation early next year. The gap between anticipated transportation funds and needs was estimated two years ago through the early 2040s from $32 billion to $60 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 23, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
When I was driving through NC back in October, I was going through some construction zones and keeps seeing signs that read ROAD UNDER CONST. I've never seen that sign before anywhere else.

P.S.- I hope NCDOT finds a way to make it easier to get through Winston-Salem. Trying to get from US 52 to Eastbound Business 40 or I-40 is a nightmare!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 24, 2014, 07:45:56 AM
FYI, when I drove southbound along Interstate 95 through NC on Sunday night, signs for Future I-295 were greened out to reflect NC 295.
I saw that when I went up in November. I stayed in this cheap hotel at the end of it, and started talking to the hotel clerk about the removal or the I-295 shields, and she thought it contributed to the inability to draw customers to the place.

The hotel was damn nearly a roach motel (not the most stable balcony), but the clerk was a gorgeous woman. If she had been willing, I would've invited her to my room that night.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on December 28, 2014, 05:58:07 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on December 28, 2014, 06:47:13 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Nothing public. NCDOT documents only refer to it as Blue Ridge Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on December 28, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on December 28, 2014, 10:45:21 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?

I believe (though someone else will probably correct me on this) that the VA-48 designation is used for describing the right-of-way around the BRP and Skyline Drive that the NPS maintains, as all references to it in CTB notes are related to land transactions. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on December 28, 2014, 11:18:50 PM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.

Why would VA bother to assign a number to a road they didn't build and are not responsible for?

The Baltimore-Washington Parkway is an unsigned Maryland 295 for the first bit of its route. It's an easy way to refer to the highway within state documents and communication.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 29, 2014, 12:55:49 AM
Does anyone know if the Blue Ridge Parkway (all of which is maintained by the National Park Service) has a state route number in North Carolina?

It is Va. 48 north of the state line.
Nothing public. NCDOT documents only refer to it as Blue Ridge Parkway.

Ditto.  North Carolina doesn't have a state highway assigned to the route, it's just the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 29, 2014, 06:28:29 AM

I believe (though someone else will probably correct me on this) that the VA-48 designation is used for describing the right-of-way around the BRP and Skyline Drive that the NPS maintains, as all references to it in CTB notes are related to land transactions. 

This is correct...

Here is the 1957 route log:

(http://www.vahighways.com/route-log/VDOT%20logs/57_40-50.jpg)

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on January 02, 2015, 05:00:26 PM
Deja vu in the Queen City, as its unlit freeways are the subject of a news headline once again...
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/01/02/5420568/dozens-of-burned-out-street-lights.html#.VKcUJGfQcdU
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 02, 2015, 09:04:26 PM
Deja vu in the Queen City, as its unlit freeways are the subject of a news headline once again...
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/01/02/5420568/dozens-of-burned-out-street-lights.html#.VKcUJGfQcdU

Yea, they fixed all the interstate lights just before the Democratic Convention a few years ago.  As expected, the maintenance hasn't kept up since; part of the problem though is the system is pretty out-dated and the whole system should be re-wired.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on January 07, 2015, 06:43:49 PM
NCDOT is "confident" construction on the long awaited Monroe Bypass will start this Spring, and end in 2018. It'd be interesting if this project is not halted by more lawsuits, like the one currently from the Southern Environmental Law Center.

http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/27775757/dot-says-its-confident-monroe-bypass-begins-this-spring
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 30, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
New I-495 signage at the interchange with I-440.
http://ow.ly/i/8spyd
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 30, 2015, 08:31:25 PM
North?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 30, 2015, 11:08:08 PM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 30, 2015, 11:27:04 PM
Speaking of NCDOT posted photos, anyone have information about this one, posted about 3 months ago?
(http://static.ow.ly/photos/normal/7p3ce.jpg)

from http://ow.ly/i/7p3ce (http://ow.ly/i/7p3ce)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 30, 2015, 11:51:36 PM
Speaking of NCDOT posted photos, anyone have information about this one, posted about 3 months ago?

You talking about the signs used for the run on I-485?  That's long gone and I'm sure the signs are either in the trash or kept as a collector item.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 08:25:32 AM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
East-northeast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 31, 2015, 08:31:25 AM
Plus the road (495/64) connects Raleigh to I-95 North, so it carries plenty of northbound traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 31, 2015, 10:06:12 AM
North?

Why are you surprised its north-south?   :confused:  Rocky Mount is northwest of Raleigh.
East-northeast.

Opps, sometimes I get my northwest and northeast mixed-up.  Regardless, it's still going in a northerly direction, similar to I-85 in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 10:15:01 AM
It's more east than north. I suppose as a connection to I-95 north makes sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 31, 2015, 07:14:45 PM
It's more east than north. I suppose as a connection to I-95 north makes sense.

Generally, people that take that route continue north into Virginia from Raleigh and vice-versa.  To go south on I-95, they would take I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 07:32:36 PM
So I-40 should be signed south. And I-40 west should be signed south, since it's the route to I-85 south. But wait, I-495 will be the route to US 58 east, so it and I-95 should be east.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 01, 2015, 08:58:15 AM
So I-40 should be signed south. And I-40 west should be signed south, since it's the route to I-85 south. But wait, I-495 will be the route to US 58 east, so it and I-95 should be east.

I-495 is not be the route to US 58 east, the road continues as US 64 east to the Outer Banks.  There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach; and if there was, it wouldn't be a super long 3di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 01, 2015, 03:28:39 PM
I-495 is not be[sic] the route to I-95 north,[sic] the road continues as US 64 east to the Outer Banks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2015, 03:28:55 PM
Quote
There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach

Some business boosters and even the Governor's transportation plan argue otherwise...

As I recall, we had this discussion/argument about north-south vs east-west for I-495 when the number was first announced.  Though I disagree with the decision to sign it north-south (there is no requirement that 3dis be signed the same directions as their parent), I can understand it.  There would be confusion regardless of whether it's signed east-west or north-south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 01, 2015, 03:31:38 PM
Considering that I-495 is a spur of its parent it should be East- West.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 02, 2015, 06:33:47 PM
Quote
There is no future interstate "planned" between Raleigh and Virginia Beach

Some business boosters and even the Governor's transportation plan argue otherwise...

As I recall, we had this discussion/argument about north-south vs east-west for I-495 when the number was first announced.  Though I disagree with the decision to sign it north-south (there is no requirement that 3dis be signed the same directions as their parent), I can understand it.  There would be confusion regardless of whether it's signed east-west or north-south.

There is talk about an interstate, but that it is... talk.  A decade ago there was talk of extending I-20 to Wilmington that went no where; there was talk of I-99 along US 17, which has also gone no where.  What I am saying is that NCDOT has no immediate plans to build an interstate between the two cities is all.  In the future that may change, but at the moment it's simply a proposal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 02, 2015, 06:34:18 PM
Considering that I-495 is a spur of its parent it should be East- West.

Why should it be east-west?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 11, 2015, 01:24:28 PM
NCDOT's website has added three more county atlas books to their historical collection:

1980, 1990, and 1999-2000

All can be downloaded here (scroll to very bottom) - http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/default.html#county_maps

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 11, 2015, 05:44:50 PM
NCDOT's website has added three more county atlas books to their historical collection:

1980, 1990, and 1999-2000

All can be downloaded here (scroll to very bottom) - http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/statemapping/default.html#county_maps

Mapmikey
Thanks. Speaking of maps, anyone heard when, or if, there will be a new NC state map? The NCDOT website still proudly proclaims that the new 2013-2014 map is now available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on February 17, 2015, 09:27:39 AM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Any source on the I-77 widening?  Four toll lanes so expanded to 5 total lanes on each side?  If so that's very impressive and should be sufficient capacity for the next 30-40 years at least.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on February 20, 2015, 12:05:38 PM
Looks like the Charlotte region is going to have some pretty big projects going on in the next ten years (mostly funded by toll roads). They are:

I-77 South. The road will be widen by four toll lanes, along with replacing most of the bridges for the needed ROW. Construction is slated to start around 2024.

I-85 in Rowan County and in Gaston County. The road will be widened to eight lane highway between Lane Street and US 29/US 601 Connector in Rowan County, and as well in Gaston County between US 321 and NC 273. This will make I-85 an eight lane highway through much of the metro Charlotte area, and will also make the road consistently eight/six lanes between Gastonia to Hillsborough.

I-485 in South Charlotte. The remainder of the road between Rea Road and US 74 will be widened to a total of eight lanes, with two of those lanes being toll lanes. This project will also add toll lanes to the existing section of I-485 that was just widened (the two lanes are currently being used as a large shoulder), and adding two lanes for tolls between US 521 and Rea Road. Construction could start as soon as 2018.

US 74 in Southeast Charlotte. The road will be converted to a controlled access highway, and the major intersections will be grade separated for over/underpasses. The two inner lanes will be used as toll/express bus lanes. Construction is slated to start around 2022, though conversion of the existing busway to reversible toll lanes, from Uptown Charlotte to NC-24/27, could start as soon as 2017.

Any source on the I-77 widening?  Four toll lanes so expanded to 5 total lanes on each side?  If so that's very impressive and should be sufficient capacity for the next 30-40 years at least.

There's an interactive map towards the bottom, that gives some info on the project:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/

More info can be found in this excel document. The project is broken up into several different pieces:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIData/Highway_STI_Data.xlsm
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 12:17:13 PM
In 1964, North Carolina briefly considered an interstate corridor from Fayetteville to Norfolk.  The number for consideration - Interstate 13.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2015/02/terry-sanfords-1964-north-carolina.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 22, 2015, 12:29:47 PM
According to the article, the state considered making it an Interstate, but only a single senator gave it the I-13 designation. It's worth noting that this was only a year or two after US 13 had been extended from Goldsboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 12:44:14 PM
I have a whole bunch of old articles that I have kept aside for research on pages/projects I'll never get to so I'd figure I'd share them as I get a chance for possibly someone to use on their site, blog etc.

When Governor Mike Easley pushed to extended I-20 into North Carolina about a decade ago, he was just echoing the thoughts of the Robeson County Commissioners in 1971. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4217,1070033
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 01:06:22 PM
Series of articles on NCDOT's 1978 decision to route I-40 from I-95 to Wilmington along US 117 vs. US 421.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19780422&id=Q9BOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6194%2C4313228

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19780419&id=QNBOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2835%2C3802134

And from pushback against an early proposal to route I-40 along US 70 to Morehead City:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19711115&id=x-gbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wlEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566%2C1117280

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6035%2C1082924
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 22, 2015, 02:38:50 PM
Link for the December 1980 opening of the Fayetteville Bypass section of I-95: 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19801216&id=mOMbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UVIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3671,1959307

This completed I-95 within the state.  The completion of I-95 around Fayetteville was dragged on from a 1967 - 1976 legal battle over the routing of I-95.  Business groups wanted 95 to remain along US 301 (today's Business 95).

Some background:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19750808&id=7OJNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3811,922246
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19751205&id=lmpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wiQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5139,3494527
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 24, 2015, 03:50:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Rockingham,+NC/@34.992846,-79.7895278,1583m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8854c8db0f5a2927:0x5e26fb6d4bfca517

I am guessing that the construction and path through the trees in the center of this here image is that of some more work to extend I-73 and I-74 further south to connect it with US 74 at Rockingham.  If this is to be then US 220 north to Ellerby is going to be upgraded to be freeway instead of a new alignment elsewhere being the way the roads are to come together at the north end of the construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 24, 2015, 04:22:37 PM
Yeah, they are constructing I-73/I-74 by using the current US 220 from Elliebe to the proposed US 220 interchange near Rockingham. The proposed trumpet interchange that you just see from the link.. will carry US 220 over I-73/I-74. I guess the construction on Western Rockingham Bypass won't start until after 2018 somehow. I still think NCDOT should go ahead and construct WRB to connect to US 74.

If you moved up north on Google Maps, you will see both frontage roads being constructed as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2015, 10:55:13 PM
Gold Rock to Kenly, NC  stretch of Interstate 95 opened November 21, 1978

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1105&dat=19781116&id=F0NlAAAAIBAJ&sjid=i5MNAAAAIBAJ&pg=346,3408468
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 05, 2015, 06:43:55 PM
I have a whole bunch of old articles that I have kept aside for research on pages/projects I'll never get to so I'd figure I'd share them as I get a chance for possibly someone to use on their site, blog etc.

When Governor Mike Easley pushed to extended I-20 into North Carolina about a decade ago, he was just echoing the thoughts of the Robeson County Commissioners in 1971. 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19710506&id=f69OAAAAIBAJ&sjid=twkEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4217,1070033

So the Robeson County Commissioners wanted an I-40 junction as far south as possible and an I-20 extension to Wilmington?

Also loving the state named interstate shield.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 17, 2015, 08:44:36 AM
Work is beginning this week on the Durham East End Connector (possible future I-885). And it only took 60 years to get it going.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=10891
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 18, 2015, 12:34:34 PM
These old articles are very interesting finds, especially the I-13 one! But in all due respect as to the Raleigh-Norfolk route, I like the I-44 idea better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 18, 2015, 08:50:53 PM
The Raleigh-Norfolk idea makes more sense now than it did back then. The Research Triangle has exploded in growth in the last 50 years.

Also, Terry Sanford was from Laurinburg and practiced law in Fayetteville. You think that he might have had a self-interest in his I-13 proposal?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 25, 2015, 12:59:31 PM
Also, Terry Sanford was from Laurinburg and practiced law in Fayetteville. You think that he might have had a self-interest in his I-13 proposal?
I highly suspect that, as part of the corridor was already signed as US 13. I myself would've proposed it as I-97, if they had insisted on a north-south route, freeing up I-99 for a potential route along the coast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 25, 2015, 04:50:06 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 25, 2015, 07:04:45 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 25, 2015, 10:33:05 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.

Will it only go to Winston-Salem or will it go up to the Winston-Salem Beltway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 26, 2015, 01:01:39 PM
Does anyone have any idea when the US 52 freeway south of Winston-Salem will become Interstate 285?

The quick answer is when roadway improvements are completed.  As to when the construction will be finish, should be soon.

Will it only go to Winston-Salem or will it go up to the Winston-Salem Beltway?
AFAIK, it'll only go to Winston-Salem for now (presumably ending at I-40). If improvements are ever done north of there to the Beltway, then it's possible they may extend it further.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 26, 2015, 04:13:11 PM
Yeah, I-285 will only go from I-85 to I-40 (it will end at I-40 in Winston-Salem, with the extension possible after improvements are done to US 52 that connects to the proposed Beltway.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 28, 2015, 10:01:03 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 28, 2015, 11:40:39 PM
I just drove through NC and it looks like that there is major construction happening on a new interchange at Exit 22 in Lumberton. Majorly needed because the previous one was terrible and just caused congestion. That exit has gotten way more commercialized in the last decade and needed a new interchange to reflect that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 30, 2015, 01:00:21 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 06, 2015, 01:44:44 PM

I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Actually it is not shown as complete...

Mapmikey
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on April 14, 2015, 08:20:45 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Supposed to open in May
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 15, 2015, 12:23:50 PM
2015-2016 map is now available:

http://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/

Changes I see:

Insets: (some of these changes are also shown on the main map too)
I-495 labeled near Raleigh
I-785 label replaces I-840 label east of Greensboro
Sanford Bypass complete to US 1 (it is actually fully open now) and labeled as NC 87 Byp
NC 148 extension to US 70 shown as finished
They redrew I-540 between Exits 17-20
NC 295 open between NC 87 and NC 210
several Charlotte roads redrawn to what I presume is more accurate alignment

main map:
US 311 leaving I-74 at Randleman is now visible
Exit numbers added to I-73/74
FUTURE I-495 shield added east of Zebulon
NC 186 western extension shown but not labeled


Mapmikey
I take it that I-485 is shown as an entirely completed loop on this map? BTW, when is the last constructed portion (from east of I-77 back to I-85) scheduled to open, if it hasn't been already?

Supposed to open in May
That's what I thought.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 17, 2015, 07:52:44 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 17, 2015, 08:08:52 PM
The Governor released his proposed $3 Billion in Bonds package today.  $1.5 Billion would go towards Transportation and $1.5 Billion would go towards Infrastructure.  Not a sure thing yet, as it will need to be approved by the Legislators before voters get a chance to approve or deny the bonds in November.

Article:  McCrory proposes $3 billion in bonds for fall vote (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article18723564.html)
List of Bond Projects:  Transporation Bond Projects/Infrastructure Bond Projects (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article18723558.ece/BINARY/List%20of%20Bond%20Projects.pdf?hc_location=ufi)

Some of the big items include:  I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway, I-295 Fayetteville Outer Loop, US 74 Shelby Bypass and the I-40/I-77 Interchange in Statesville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 17, 2015, 10:33:56 PM
Quote
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:

Unless they come with dollar signs, it's effectively useless legislation.  And unless the bill includes connections to other important military facilities in other states, it has no chance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 18, 2015, 12:45:03 AM
The North Carolina legislature likes building useless interstates or jumping the gun on building interstates when other states show no interest. It's not the home of I-73 and east coast home of I-74 for nothing, you know.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 19, 2015, 06:56:46 PM
The recently announced STIP doesn't have anything in the I-795/US 117 corridor, and I can't see anything happening there in the foreseeable future. The upgrading of US 70 is a long-term project that's definitely moving forward, but full freeway at interstate standards is still a long way off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on April 19, 2015, 10:05:41 PM
What happened to the I-95 widening/tolling? Doesn't look there's much going on there...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 19, 2015, 10:32:42 PM
Local political opposition made that a non-starter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on April 19, 2015, 11:36:38 PM
Local political opposition made that a non-starter.

No, I didn't think the folks in Eastern NC were going to take kindly to it, "we'll build free limited access corridors or expand the existing ones all over the state but fuck I-95, let the tourists pay for it and who cares what the eastern half of the state thinks?"

Enough to get it killed...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 19, 2015, 11:58:07 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on April 20, 2015, 05:18:05 AM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2015, 07:11:05 AM
I agree with Cemajr.  Tolling may suck for the locals, but given the volume of out-of-state travelers who use it, it makes sense from the state's perspective to toll it to pay for upgrades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on April 20, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 20, 2015, 12:54:04 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on April 20, 2015, 03:52:00 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.

I think we've been through this already though (and I think I made the same points). Eastern North Carolina is the poorest part of the state with very high poverty and it is very rural. Tolls are already a form of regressive taxation, putting them in Eastern NC would be terrible for the locals. Free tolls for those with an address within x miles of I-95 would probably be the best solution.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on April 20, 2015, 09:04:24 PM
Tolling I-95 is a terrible idea. It runs through the poorest part of the state with no real metro area being served by it.

It's be like routing the Pennsylvania Turnpike onto I-80 honestly. If NC is going to toll a road to raise money, I-85 is the obvious answer.

I think tolling it is an excellent idea.  It's used much more by out of state travelers between the northeast and Florida more than local NC residents.  It's actually a very busy highway and I have no qualms about letting those travelers pay to upgrade the road that they use the most.  Tolling 85 makes no sense as it's already a modern and high quality roadway through most of the state.  The whole idea is to make money off the people who use 95 the most to pay for its upgrades. 

So now that the tolling idea has been struck down I guess those northeast-Florida drivers can expect 95 to remain the substandard 1960s era interstate that it currently is for a very long time.  95 just isn't priority enough for the residents of NC to spend the estimated $4B on upgrading with our tax dollars.  It's easily the least important interstate in the state.

I think we've been through this already though (and I think I made the same points). Eastern North Carolina is the poorest part of the state with very high poverty and it is very rural. Tolls are already a form of regressive taxation, putting them in Eastern NC would be terrible for the locals. Free tolls for those with an address within x miles of I-95 would probably be the best solution.

I do agree that they should've offered some type of exemption or greatly reduced rate for NC residents.  That probably would've gotten the tolls approved.  Being that out of state drivers are by far the biggest users of that highway, I'm not sure why the NCDOT didn't make such a proposal.  Even without money from NC residents they would have still been able to collect a significant amount of toll revenue as I doubt most long distance travelers would've been bothered to use 85/77 as an alternative to 95 in NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 20, 2015, 10:58:22 PM
Quote from: Thing342
Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.

Very difficult if not impossible to actually implement/enforce this.  Something along the lines of what Nature Boy or Cemajr suggested, with EZPass discounts for local residents, is more realistic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 20, 2015, 11:16:40 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
It's not too late to do this, I guess: relocate I-40 to the US 70 corridor and renumber the freeway to Wilmington. But I don't think that's likely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hurricanehink on April 21, 2015, 02:49:16 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)
Like there needs to be another Interstate serving Raleigh! I'll bet that they're finally starting to realize how they blew the chance to send I-40 east along the US 70 corridor instead of south along US 117. Why this wasn't thought up at the same time as the I-40 extension (which would work better with an odd 2di designation) is beyond me.
It's not too late to do this, I guess: relocate I-40 to the US 70 corridor and renumber the freeway to Wilmington. But I don't think that's likely.
Not with I-140 already there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 22, 2015, 10:29:49 PM
Yeah. More likely NCDOT would go for a 2di number like I-42 or I-46 for the US 70 route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 23, 2015, 01:08:28 PM
Yeah. More likely NCDOT would go for a 2di number like I-42 or I-46 for the US 70 route.
That would be a good compromise. In a perfect world, I-40 would go to Morehead City and the Raleigh-Wilmington route would be I-97, as I once suggested from old atlas markings, but it'll never happen that way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on April 27, 2015, 11:20:41 PM
North Carolina Congressional Delegation today introduced companion bills that would “high priority corridors”  and “future interstates" for two routes in the state:
  • US 117/I-795 - Between I-40 and US 70
  • US 70 - Between Garner and the state port at Morehead City
Details in the press release:  NCDOT Offers Thanks and Support for Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11022)

The text of the Senate bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/983/text) has been posted on Congress.gov and it does not provide specific interstate numerical designations for the two corridors, although it does provide that they would be High Priority Corridor Nos. 81 and 82 on the list of FHWA High Priority Corridors (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm):

Quote
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act of 2015” .
SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.–Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended by adding at the end the following:
“(81) United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.
“(82) United States Route 70 from its intersection with Interstate Route 40 in Garner, Wake County, North Carolina, to the Port at Morehead City, Carteret County, North Carolina.” .
(b) Inclusion Of Certain Route Segments On Interstate System.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (109 Stat. 597; 119 Stat. 1213) is amended in the first sentence by striking “and subsection (c)(57)”  and inserting “subsection (c)(57), subsection (c)(81), and subsection (c)(82)” .
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 06, 2015, 10:01:29 AM
Looks like if I-77 is tolled as planned, it will not be widened again for another half-century:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article20226147.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 06, 2015, 10:32:50 AM
Tolling I-77 is a curious decision. What is the traffic count on it? It seems to only serve to connect Cleveland to Charlotte with maybe some Charleston bound traffic in between.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 06, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
There's a fair bit of traffic that uses 77 to 81 to connect to inland areas of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.  There's also a lot of warehousing and manufacturing along I-81 in Virginia and some of that traffic utilizes 77 to head to/from points south.  But the bulk of traffic on 77 in the area in question is metro Charlotte traffic.

The overall Express Lane project runs from I-277/NC 16 up to NC 150...the segment specified in the article is the northernmost 8 miles.  This segment sees daily volumes of 60-90K, getting higher as you head south.  Those are volumes that are pretty high for a 4-lane freeway, even an urban one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on May 06, 2015, 11:39:19 AM
If helps alleviate traffic congestion in Charlotte then I'm for it. I-85 and 77 can resemble parking lots if you go out at the wrong time.

I do wonder how much the light rail will alleviate congestion once more lines get built. Charlotte needs reliable public transit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 06, 2015, 01:41:08 PM
The tolls are now officially coming to a 25-mile stretch of I-77:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article20265252.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 07, 2015, 10:08:10 PM
Looks like Apple Maps has updated and shows 485 as completed around Charlotte.  Hope people don't run into the 'Road Closed' signs trying to follow its directions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 08, 2015, 01:29:20 PM
I saw that on my iPhone too! I-485 isn't completed yet.. there are still a few tweaks to do before it opens later this summer. Apple must be crazy.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tarcanes92 on May 09, 2015, 01:03:11 AM
I saw that on my iPhone too! I-485 isn't completed yet.. there are still a few tweaks to do before it opens later this summer. Apple must be crazy.

Guess apple didn't get the updated memo.  But then again, there have been way to many updated memos for this section.  First, it was suppose to be done in Dec 2014, then spring 2015, and now it is summer 2015.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 12, 2015, 10:03:22 AM
NCDOT announces start of project to bring far northern section of I-85 up to current interstate standards:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2015, 12:53:22 PM
NCDOT announces start of project to bring far northern section of I-85 up to current interstate standards:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11124)

Good news: NCDOT is finally fixing the horrible section of I-85 between Henderson and the Virginia line. This road dates from the early 1960s.

Bad news: The project will take five years to complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on May 12, 2015, 01:27:32 PM

Easy solution: make the road free for those with NC plates.

That raises potential constitutional problems under the Dormant Commerce Clause because the state would be discriminating against interstate (lowercase "i") commerce.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 12, 2015, 03:22:53 PM
Hopefully those I-85 repairs include a bump to 70mph limits, although that road doesn't really appear all that substandard to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 12, 2015, 06:43:56 PM
Hopefully those I-85 repairs include a bump to 70mph limits, although that road doesn't really appear all that substandard to me.

Yes, it is substandard.  Typically, when they get it to current standards they bump up to 70mph.  For example, the widen section of I-485 around Pineville has covered 70 mph signs... just waiting for the construction to finish.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 13, 2015, 12:10:02 PM
Seems to me that opposition to I-77 toll lanes is still going strong, and alternatives to widen the road are still floating around:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article20778747.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 13, 2015, 12:57:58 PM
I-485 set to open June 5th at Noon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 14, 2015, 11:56:54 AM
I-485 set to open June 5th at Noon.
I've already had that date marked! :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2015, 03:34:56 PM
Congress.gov has posted the text for the proposed ROAD Act of 2015 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2211/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Intermodal+Surface+Transportation+Efficiency+Act+of+1991%22%5D%7D), which would amend HPC 13 to expressly include Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina as part of the route, and would officially designate the corridor as a future interstate:

Quote
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Route to Opportunity And Development Act of 2015”  or the “ROAD Act of 2015” .

SEC. 2. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

(a) In general.–Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by striking paragraph (13) and inserting the following:

“(13) Raleigh-Norfolk Corridor from Raleigh, North Carolina, through Rocky Mount, Williamston, and Elizabeth City, North Carolina, to Norfolk, Virginia.” .
 
(b) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate system.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended by inserting “subsection (c)(13),”  after “subsection (c)(9),” .

The current language of paragraph (13) can be found here (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l13).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 20, 2015, 08:22:11 PM
NCDOT announced today that they have reached the financial close on the I-77 toll lanes with I-77 Mobility Partners. 

Press Release:  https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11161 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11161)

Local Paper: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article21484476.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article21484476.html)

This whole process has given NCDOT a black eye on how they have not been very forthcoming on the contract changes last year promising no additional improvements for I-77 for the duration of the contract (50 years); which means that if more lanes were needed to ease traffic, they either could not or would compensate I-77 Mobility Partners of loss revenue.  This caused all the towns along I-77 and Mecklenburg County requesting a delay in the process, which NCDOT refused.

My personal take, any other possible public-private partnership that is suggested will have to deal with the bad blood started here.  I-77 south of Center City is planned to add toll lanes after 2020 and likely another public-private candidate... it will be interesting how that turns out.  Other toll lanes being constructed (US 74, I-485) and toll roads are own wholly by NCDOT, so possible future improvements would not be hindered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 20, 2015, 10:12:57 PM
NCDOT didn't learn from VDOT's mistakes.  'Course, given who controls the legislature and the governor's office, I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on May 20, 2015, 10:25:29 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 20, 2015, 10:40:47 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 25, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
Drove through Eastern NC over the weekend.  Looks like NC 24 is being upgraded to a four-lane divided highway between Fayetteville and Clinton.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 26, 2015, 06:40:41 PM
Google now has satellite views of the I-140 segment between US 17 and US 74/76, and of the construction zone to northeast.
https://goo.gl/maps/vW2qR
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on May 28, 2015, 05:35:03 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.

I'm willing to bet that I-77 in South Charlotte will be the second.

Also, construction on the US 74 Monroe Bypass has begun.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11192

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 28, 2015, 05:40:02 PM
Why would NC be messing around with a private-public concession when they already have a toll road division all setup? Is the toll road bond market that lousy?

In 2013, the legislators made changes to the Authority allowing them to have up to three public/private agreements. The I-77 Managed Lanes Project in Charlotte is the first.  Will they do two more after this, dunno.

I'm willing to bet that I-77 in South Charlotte will be the second.

Also, construction on the US 74 Monroe Bypass has begun.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11192

Finally.  That Monroe Bypass is desperately needed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 02, 2015, 12:28:09 PM
Things aren't looking so good for the Governor's proposed transportation bond issue:
http://www.wral.com/top-legislative-leaders-cast-doubt-on-transportation-bonds/14684933/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Gnutella on June 03, 2015, 06:29:40 AM
Has I-85 been widened between Kannapolis and High Point? I remember a segment of it was still four lanes back in 2009, and it stuck out like a sore thumb because it was the only four-lane segment between Durham and Gastonia.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 03, 2015, 07:52:45 AM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 03, 2015, 10:07:47 AM
Quote
I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

How slow were you going?  I've been stuck in plenty of traffic on I-95 but we were still going at or close to the speed limit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on June 03, 2015, 12:56:06 PM
Has I-85 been widened between Kannapolis and High Point? I remember a segment of it was still four lanes back in 2009, and it stuck out like a sore thumb because it was the only four-lane segment between Durham and Gastonia.

It's been mostly widened.  The only part that's still 4 lanes is between Exit 55 and Exit 68 around Kannapolis.  They're already widening that segment right now and redesigning some of the interchanges.  I think it's supposed to be complete late 2016.  Then the only parts of 85 remaining that will be 4 lanes will be north of Durham and the segment near the SC border.

They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.

They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 03, 2015, 01:21:28 PM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.

They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
I agree, and add GA to that group. Making I-95 less than 2 lanes each way is a major insult to the East Coast's main Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 03, 2015, 04:43:36 PM
Quote
I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

How slow were you going?  I've been stuck in plenty of traffic on I-95 but we were still going at or close to the speed limit.


Not entirely "rural" but really not urban as there are nothing but trees on either side of the road through here:


On May 9 2015 (a Saturday, no less) between 1430 and 1450 hrs it took me 20 minutes, 22 seconds to cover the 13.0 miles northbound on I-95 from MM47 to MM60 (so from just south of the Hope Mills rest area to just south of the Wade-Stedman Rd exit). There were multiple times in that segment I was at a dead stop. For the first time in a long time there weren't a whole bunch of trucks blocking the view either, and I never saw any blue or red flashing lights to denote an incident of some kind, so it was just a case of volume exceeding capacity.


38.4mph over that 70mph speed limit segment on a Saturday????? I could understand it if it was closer to 1700 hrs and on a weekday since Fayetteville and Ft Bragg is right there but a Saturday afternoon??


(source Garmin Basecamp, measurements taken with a Garmin Nuvi 2689 LMT)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on June 03, 2015, 05:03:26 PM

It's been mostly widened.  The only part that's still 4 lanes is between Exit 55 and Exit 68 around Kannapolis.  They're already widening that segment right now and redesigning some of the interchanges.  I think it's supposed to be complete late 2016.  Then the only parts of 85 remaining that will be 4 lanes will be north of Durham and the segment near the SC border.

The current widening project is for I-85 from Exit 55 to Exit 60. When this project is complete (projected for Dec 2017), there still will be a bottleneck from Exit 60 to 68. The next project to widen the bottleneck is projected to begin ROW acquisition in 2018 and begin construction in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 03, 2015, 07:27:01 PM
They really need to widen I-95. I've been stuck in traffic in some really rural areas, it's bad.

And by "they," I mean NC, SC and Virginia. I-95 should probably never be a two-lane road given its high traffic volume.
They really do but with the tolling option shot down who knows if it will ever get widened in our lifetimes now.
I agree, and add GA to that group. Making I-95 less than 2 lanes each way is a major insult to the East Coast's main Interstate.

To be fair, I-95 between Jacksonville, FL and Petersburg, VA isn't a high priority on anyone's list except those that can't drive fast enough through it.  The states have no insentive to improve it since I-95 isn't an economic benefactor compared to others in those states.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: afguy on June 03, 2015, 07:31:59 PM
Georgia has already six-laned Interstate 95 through the entire state. The project was completed in 2010. In fact, Georgia is the first state in the Southeast to have I-95 be six lanes from state line to state line. Also unlike the Carolinas, Georgia has vested interest in making sure I-95 is six lanes, Savannah and Brunswick. Both a major tourist cities and ports, with Savannah receiving 13 million tourists annually and being home to the nation's fourth busiest container port. Also the Port of Brunswick is major port for automobiles and agricultural products.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 04, 2015, 12:02:03 PM
Georgia has already six-laned Interstate 95 through the entire state. The project was completed in 2010. In fact, Georgia is the first state in the Southeast to have I-95 be six lanes from state line to state line. Also unlike the Carolinas, Georgia has vested interest in making sure I-95 is six lanes, Savannah and Brunswick. Both a major tourist cities and ports, with Savannah receiving 13 million tourists annually and being home to the nation's fourth busiest container port. Also the Port of Brunswick is major port for automobiles and agricultural products.
Well, then disregard what I said about GA. And what I meant to say was, making I-95 less than 3 lanes each way is an insult to the main Interstate route on the East Coast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 05, 2015, 09:00:45 PM
Split off the most recent chat about I-485 into the thread that's already dedicated to that highway. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1312.0) :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 07, 2015, 01:18:37 PM
Here is info on the widening of I-85 from 4 lanes to 8 near Kannapolis: http://bit.ly/1HUbNCL
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 15, 2015, 06:20:58 PM
NCDOT has reached a settlement with environmental groups that clears the way for the replacement of the Bonner Bridge on NC 12, connecting Hatteras Island to the mainland. In return for withdrawal of the lawsuits, NCDOT will cancel its plans for improvements to NC 12 north of Rodanthe and start a new study that will likely recommend moving this section of the highway westward off the island and over Pamlico Sound.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11288
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 28, 2015, 10:42:46 AM
US-17 will be widened to 4 lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville, finally:


http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072 (http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072)


Quote
After decades of trying to open the corridor to four lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville it is finally going to happen.The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a $143.4 million construction contract to Balfour Beatty and E.V. Williams on June 16 to begin the project from northern Onslow County through Jones County to River Bend.The project will convert the current two-lane highway into a four-lane, divided expressway with bypasses at Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville, according to a press release from the Highway 17 Association.


Quote
“After patiently waiting through decades of permitting, landowner and funding issues, eastern North Carolina will see a four-lane expressway linking New Bern to Jacksonville,”  he said in a press release.[/font][/size]The project is expected to break ground in September or October and should be completed in approximately three years, according to the Highway 17 Association.</blockquote>The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Board of Transportation members from Eastern North Carolina receive the credit for finding the balance of funding required to build the project and accelerating the construction date to 2015, Finlayson said.




Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Zeffy on June 28, 2015, 11:00:34 AM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 28, 2015, 11:52:59 AM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.

Yes, Zeffy it is a busy and dangerous corridor.
I'm not sure on the average number of vehicles, but I do know that on most summer weekends traffic is rolling along at 25-30 mph (in a 55 zone) and the town of Maysville has a ridiculously slow 20 mph speed limit near the NC-58 intersection.

Back in the day when I ran volunteer Fire/EMS with Pollocksville Fire and Rescue (in the mid 90's) we had alot of really bad head on crashes due to one person holding up a long line of traffic and someone pulling out to pass only to get creamed by a log truck. There was talk of doing bypasses and expanding the rest to 4 lanes even then, but there was the usual push back from those who would lose property in the ROW acquisition. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 28, 2015, 05:14:40 PM
US-17 will be widened to 4 lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville, finally:


http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072 (http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/NEWS/150629072)


Quote
After decades of trying to open the corridor to four lanes between New Bern and Jacksonville it is finally going to happen.The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a $143.4 million construction contract to Balfour Beatty and E.V. Williams on June 16 to begin the project from northern Onslow County through Jones County to River Bend.The project will convert the current two-lane highway into a four-lane, divided expressway with bypasses at Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville, according to a press release from the Highway 17 Association.


Quote
“After patiently waiting through decades of permitting, landowner and funding issues, eastern North Carolina will see a four-lane expressway linking New Bern to Jacksonville,”  he said in a press release.[/font][/size]The project is expected to break ground in September or October and should be completed in approximately three years, according to the Highway 17 Association.</blockquote>The N.C. Department of Transportation and the Board of Transportation members from Eastern North Carolina receive the credit for finding the balance of funding required to build the project and accelerating the construction date to 2015, Finlayson said.
Based on the signing plans it appears the Bypass of Pollocksville will be between mileposts 130 and 136, with the existing US 17 between those points becoming US 17 Business. A curiosity at  the north end of the project. The current signage, according to the plans, has the US 70 interchange with US 17 being Exit 147, while under the new signage it will be 141. Will the new bypass(es) shave that much off of US 17's current mileage, or is this simply an error in the plans?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 28, 2015, 06:17:07 PM



Quote
Based on the signing plans it appears the Bypass of Pollocksville will be between mileposts 130 and 136, with the existing US 17 between those points becoming US 17 Business. A curiosity at  the north end of the project. The current signage, according to the plans, has the US 70 interchange with US 17 being Exit 147, while under the new signage it will be 141. Will the new bypass(es) shave that much off of US 17's current mileage, or is this simply an error in the plans?

Seems like a mistake. Here is the current signage: https://goo.gl/maps/OLgiI
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 29, 2015, 08:47:50 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 08:59:29 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.


I'd be willing to bet the vpd on the segment of 17 in question is a fair bit higher during the summer with beach traffic. 

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 29, 2015, 11:15:36 AM
Looking at the county traffic maps, average volumes on 17 are mostly in the 10-12K range.  So right on the cusp of warranting 4 lanes in the rural areas.  Of note however:  the existing New Bern bypass segment only sees 3300 vpd.


I'd be willing to bet the vpd on the segment of 17 in question is a fair bit higher during the summer with beach traffic. 

Mike

Thanks Froggie for the numbers, I never knew them for sure and yes I can attest that the traffic is alot lighter on the bypass than on the old mainline (current US-17 business). I think part of that is because until the rest of the bypass north of Exit 147 is built the bypass is really out of the way for both us locals and for thru traffic. What I mean by that is that I can still get from US-17/US-70 exit at M L King Jr Blvd to to the stoplight that is the current intersection of the bypass and US-17 business quicker by heading down MLK past the mall, the high school and my house than by staying on US-70 to Exit 410 and coming down the bypass. Even with all the stoplights and 50 mph speed limit all the way down to the north end of Rocky Run Road versus 70 mph speed limits (with people doing 78-80 on the never patrolled bypass) that still seems to be the case.


I really believe that will change whenever the rest of the bypass is built in Craven County as it will remove US-17 from the Bridgeton speed trap and the Neuse River Bridge and route it west of New Bern so the through traffic won't have to worry about having to come through here.  It will be a much better through route to go down the bypass then.


Mike, I really haven't seen any appreciable increase on the bypass during the summer months since it opened a few years ago. Most of us in the New Bern area go to Atlantic Beach via US-70 down through Havelock and Morehead City. The people who go down US-17 are trying to get to either Emerald Isle or possibly even down to the Wrightsville Beach area and are mostly not from our area, and it seems that they still choose to come down US-17 business to do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 12:26:37 PM

Mike, I really haven't seen any appreciable increase on the bypass during the summer months since it opened a few years ago. Most of us in the New Bern area go to Atlantic Beach via US-70 down through Havelock and Morehead City. The people who go down US-17 are trying to get to either Emerald Isle or possibly even down to the Wrightsville Beach area and are mostly not from our area, and it seems that they still choose to come down US-17 business to do that.

I was referring to the part of 17 yet to be bypassed which is where I think Froggie was pulling the 10-12k vpd from...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 29, 2015, 01:11:02 PM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
This would make a great Interstate corridor from Savannah to at least Norfolk, but I'll save that for another story. I think US 17 needs to be at least four lanes all the way through, if not freeway-grade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 29, 2015, 01:14:44 PM
I'm surprised it took that long. Though unfamiliar with the area, I'd assume US 17 is a major corridor for traveling to points like Wilmington, Myrtle Beach and Charleston. If that were the case, there must be a lot of traffic on US 17 when the weather is great.
This would make a great Interstate corridor from Savannah to at least Norfolk, but I'll save that for another story. I think US 17 needs to be at least four lanes all the way through, if not freeway-grade.

It would make a great interstate corridor. Right now freeway-wise Norfolk is a dead end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2015, 04:29:05 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 29, 2015, 04:36:15 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 29, 2015, 10:57:55 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(

This is why the segment of 295 between Bragg Blvd and Murchison Rd was rushed to completion ahead of the other segments under construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on June 30, 2015, 05:34:11 PM
NC 24-87 is getting ready to be moved onto NC 295 and NC 210 as the existing route through Fort Bragg property will be closed to civilian traffic...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2024_NC%2087%20More%20Information.pdf

Mike

At first I thought this would mean a new part of I-295 is opening. I guess I'm wrong  :-(

This is why the segment of 295 between Bragg Blvd and Murchison Rd was rushed to completion ahead of the other segments under construction.

I was stationed at Pope AFB in the 70s and 80s and that road was used quite a bit. That's gonna leave a mark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on June 30, 2015, 06:53:59 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tarcanes92 on July 05, 2015, 05:22:38 AM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 05, 2015, 04:50:36 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
I meant I-40 to I-85. I-95 also intersects I-26 in SC, though I may have meant I-20.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on July 18, 2015, 08:19:35 PM
Saw a map of current and proposed toll roads in 1955:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg/640px-US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg

Anybody have any information of the toll road that was proposed from Gastonia to Mount Airy? At first glance it looks like I-77, but I-77 doesn't cross through Gastonia. I'm guessing the idea behind this proposal ended up being I-77 in North Carolina, just altered from Gastonia to Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 18, 2015, 10:05:55 PM
I've had that on my list to research years ago but never got started on it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on July 18, 2015, 10:35:10 PM
Actually, I-95 doesn't have too much traffic in this state. When my family were going to Lexington, NC for a barbeque fest, our route was I-95 to US 52. Between I-26 and I-40, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

Do you mean I-85?  I-95 and US-52 do not intersect.  (If you are coming down I-95 from PA, at Petersburg, VA, you would exit onto I-85.  I-85 will take you through Lexington, NC where US-52 joins with I-85.)

But I-85 can be very heavy in traffic, depending on the time of the day and events, between Durham and Charlotte (which includes Greensboro).  While most of the road is 3+ lanes (mostly 4 lanes) in each direction between Durham and Charlotte, there are still a few sections with just 2 lanes in each direction. 

And I-85 does intersect (and duplexes with) I-40 in NC, but it doesn't intersect I-26 until you get into SC.
I meant I-40 to I-85. I-95 also intersects I-26 in SC, though I may have meant I-20.
I95 also intersects US52 in South Carolina
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on July 19, 2015, 08:39:59 PM
Saw a map of current and proposed toll roads in 1955:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg/640px-US_toll_roads_January_1955.jpg

Anybody have any information of the toll road that was proposed from Gastonia to Mount Airy? At first glance it looks like I-77, but I-77 doesn't cross through Gastonia. I'm guessing the idea behind this proposal ended up being I-77 in North Carolina, just altered from Gastonia to Charlotte.
What caught my eye was a toll road (seemingly following US 50) from Greendale/Lawrenceburg, IN to Vincennes, IN (Southern Indiana Toll Road?) and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 20, 2015, 09:59:25 AM
Quote from: amroad17
and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?

In short, south of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and close to the shore.  The northern end was to be near today's General Booth Blvd/Nimmo Pkwy intersection.  It was slated to pass through Sandbridge, False Cape State Park, and the Currituck NWF instead of Mackay Island.  Presumably, it would have followed or paralleled NC 12 once past Corolla.

Based on old Hampton Roads transportation plans, it appeared to die sometime between 1965 and 1969.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 20, 2015, 07:24:22 PM
I take that back I do have some preliminary Google News Archive on the turnpike proposals for NOrth Carolina.

As a whole they were trying to work together with Virginia and West Virginia to basically follow a route similar/parallel to I-77.  There were also proposals in the early 1950s pushed by then NC Governor Scott to build an east-west turnpike similar to I-85 and I-40 today.

Overtures were made to South Carolina to join the proposal but they said no.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19541230&id=344zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gHoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3422,4218265&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19571021&id=_dAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4VAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7133,6025150&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19550729&id=5FhgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V3ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5841,5309016&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19500928&id=KBkcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_VAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3730,3536059&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19530819&id=VLkdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1yMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3376,2324606&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19541001&id=BtAbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y1AEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6902,5357016&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500301&id=711gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GXINAAAAIBAJ&pg=3979,12425&hl=en

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19541009&id=awgaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YiMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1946,4697658&hl=en

This Miami News article from 1955 said that NC was already working on their turnpike and had authorized 125 miles.  The name of the Virginia portion appears to have been "the Old Dominion Turnpike"

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19550829&id=93hVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Qj8NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2924,4397453&hl=en

I'm thinking that it only went as far as feasibility studies and that's about it. 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500609&id=sG1gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1nENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5346,2659894&hl=en

Appears the cost would be $90-100 million

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19500307&id=8V1gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=GXINAAAAIBAJ&pg=2284,1937212&hl=en

I have notes trying to see if i could come across any more detailed information vs. what I just found in the articles.  The articles give a great start in trying to do further research.  it was just on the drawing board of pages for All Things NC I never got to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on August 04, 2015, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: amroad17
and a toll road from Virginia Beach to Nags Head.  Where would that have gone?  Down along the beaches and the Mackay Island NWF?

In short, south of the Virginia Beach Oceanfront and close to the shore.  The northern end was to be near today's General Booth Blvd/Nimmo Pkwy intersection.  It was slated to pass through Sandbridge, False Cape State Park, and the Currituck NWF instead of Mackay Island.  Presumably, it would have followed or paralleled NC 12 once past Corolla.

Based on old Hampton Roads transportation plans, it appeared to die sometime between 1965 and 1969.
Good thing it did.  On one hand, the trip from Hampton Roads to Nags Head would have been much quicker.  On the other hand, Sandbridge would not be the quiet beach it is today and there would be no False Cape State Park.  Much of the land area around this proposed toll road would most likely have been commercialized.  No quiet Corolla and Duck beachfront areas for people to enjoy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 01:12:16 AM
Between I-26 and I-20, traffic isn't incredibly heavy.

FTFY.

North of Florence, S.C. the inadequacies of only four lanes on I-95 - as far north as Petersburg, Va. - is often pretty obvious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 20, 2015, 01:16:58 AM
NCDOT has reached a settlement with environmental groups that clears the way for the replacement of the Bonner Bridge on NC 12, connecting Hatteras Island to the mainland. In return for withdrawal of the lawsuits, NCDOT will cancel its plans for improvements to NC 12 north of Rodanthe and start a new study that will likely recommend moving this section of the highway westward off the island and over Pamlico Sound.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11288

Looks to be a done (legal) deal now.

AP via WRAL.COM: Legal deal allows Bonner Bridge replacement, 2 other bridges (http://www.wral.com/legal-deal-allows-bonner-bridge-replacement-2-other-bridges/14838962/)

Quote
A legal settlement is clearing the way for work to replace the crumbling bridge connecting the Outer Banks as early as next spring, as well as two new bridges on Hatteras Island over precarious areas where the main road is frequently washed out, North Carolina officials said Tuesday.

Quote
The word comes after environmental groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center dropped a lawsuit last week blocking North Carolina from replacing the 52-year-old bridge that was designed to last for 30 years. A legal settlement wrapping up the case was reached in June.

Quote
The deal calls for a new span over Oregon Inlet parallel to the existing Bonner Bridge, the only link to the mainland from Hatteras Island. Past estimates have put the price tag for the 2.8-mile bridge at about $215 million, but years of delays would raise the price tag. The total extra cost was not yet clear, DOT spokesman Mike Charbonneau said Tuesday.

Quote
The state also will build a half-mile bridge over an unnamed inlet carved through the island by a 2011 hurricane. The bridge for North Carolina Highway 12 over the now-largely filled inlet through the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge is expected to cost about $28 million, Charbonneau said. Work on this bridge could start before the end of the year, state officials said. The DOT is scrapping a $79 million contract to build a longer, permanent bridge, according to terms of the legal settlement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 07, 2015, 10:40:08 AM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 07, 2015, 10:19:33 PM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf


That is currently a draft and not submitted to NCDOT at this time.  Site even posted comments they received so far from it:  http://gclmpo.org/ (http://gclmpo.org/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 08, 2015, 11:24:50 AM
Just found out that the Gaston Parkway was submitted to the NCDOT for Prioritization, except in a smaller segment. It would run from I-485 to South New Hope Road in south Gaston County. Widening of I-85 from US 321 to US 74 is being pushed for the 2030s, and the rest of the US 74 bypass around Shelby could happen in the 2020s/2030s.

http://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/GCLMPO-Draft-Amended-2040-MTP-Map-1-9-15.pdf


That is currently a draft and not submitted to NCDOT at this time.  Site even posted comments they received so far from it:  http://gclmpo.org/ (http://gclmpo.org/)
Well, they should hurry up and submit it!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on September 14, 2015, 12:50:57 PM
The Capital Area MPO (CAMPO) has gotten the results of a study for how to reconfigure the I-40/I-440/US1/US64 interchange in the Crossroads area between Raleigh and Cary. This interchange currently has an awful lot of cloverleafs and weaves considering how busy it is.

The study is pretty interesting. It's a fairly constrained area but they want lots of flyovers and even show several alternatives for how managed lanes could be integrated. One of the central issues is that the existing Crossroads flyover and half-exit are too close to I-40, but just closing it would overwhelm the Walnut Street interchange with traffic. Some proposals include adding an interchange on I-40 at Jones Franklin Road, others include keeping the loops and weaves at the 40/440/1/64 interchange but linking them to the entrance to Crossroads instead.

http://campo-nc.us/hotspots/FY15/Final%20CAMPO%20I-40-US%201%20Hotspot%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2015, 04:35:14 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 15, 2015, 05:58:36 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 16, 2015, 11:20:49 AM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
In which case it should be I-640, because that's what the original plans were anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 16, 2015, 02:17:40 PM
Does anyone know if NC 540 will become Interstate 540 when the Raleigh Beltway is completed? Or will only the portion between Interstate 40 (west junction) and US 64/264/Interstate 495 be in the Interstate System?

The portion that is NC 540 is a toll road and will remain a state highway long after the loop completes.  The section that is now I-540 will not be extended to I-40, NC 540 will meet-up at US 64/US 264/I-495.  Maybe after the toll road has been paid off after 30-50 years, maybe...
In which case it should be I-640, because that's what the original plans were anyway.
When NCDOT petitioned for the I-495 designation for US 64, they specifically asked for, and were granted, an exemption from changing the number from I-540 to I-640 even though it would now be connected with interstates at both ends. So the number will stay I-540. IMHO they should make it I-640 if only to further differentiate the toll from the free part of the loop: 540=toll, I-640=no toll.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 16, 2015, 03:18:14 PM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 17, 2015, 06:48:52 PM

When NCDOT petitioned for the I-495 designation for US 64, they specifically asked for, and were granted, an exemption from changing the number from I-540 to I-640 even though it would now be connected with interstates at both ends. So the number will stay I-540. IMHO they should make it I-640 if only to further differentiate the toll from the free part of the loop: 540=toll, I-640=no toll.

That's a really good idea, and since 540 is an NC highway it doesn't break any internet rules.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on September 19, 2015, 12:01:03 AM
What are these internet rules you speak of?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 19, 2015, 12:33:02 PM
What are these internet rules you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Tom958 on September 19, 2015, 03:37:58 PM
What are these internet rules you speak of?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System#Numbering_system)

I think that predictive text is doing the talking.  :-D


Quote from: orulz
The study is pretty interesting.
http://campo-nc.us/hotspots/FY15/Final%20CAMPO%20I-40-US%201%20Hotspot%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

To put it mildly. Thanks!  :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on September 19, 2015, 05:37:55 PM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.

Toll policy on the Interstate system?  Then how did I-355 in IL happen?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on September 21, 2015, 11:47:34 AM
I agree the Raleigh Beltway should have been Interstate 640 to begin with. I also think that toll policy in the Interstate system should have been repealed a long time ago. It may have made sense when all toll plazas operated via toll booths. But with all-electronic tolling becoming the norm, the policy should be repealed.

Toll policy on the Interstate system?  Then how did I-355 in IL happen?

Since it was already a tollway that was built and operated by the state, IL was able to get away with making it I-355. On the other hand, the reason the Pocahontas Parkway is VA 895 and not I-895 is because it used federal funding.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 27, 2015, 06:18:19 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 28, 2015, 07:51:56 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

I don't work that way anymore - and have been too busy to drive down.  If anyone does go, there's also the two interchanges being built near Pine Level.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: J N Winkler on October 29, 2015, 10:33:37 AM
Since it was already a tollway that was built and operated by the state, IL was able to get away with making it I-355. On the other hand, the reason the Pocahontas Parkway is VA 895 and not I-895 is because it used federal funding.

AIUI, the no-tolls policy does not apply to mileage (including mileage that was otherwise eligible for Interstate construction funds as part of the original 41,000-mile system) for which no federal funding has been used.  Examples include I-335 in Kansas (not part of original system, construction originally paid for by tolls, designated 30 years in retrospect in order to take advantage of the Reagan-era NMSL increase to 65 MPH for Interstates), I-95 between Baltimore and the Delaware state line (could have been built with Interstate construction funds, but opened as tolled I-95), entire length of the Pennsylvania Turnpike (paid for by tolls), and so on.

Virginia SR 895 had no federal funds used in its construction, so what prevents its being designated as an Interstate is several million dollars of federal funds that were disbursed for design (including compilation of environmental documentation) decades before it opened.  In principle eligibility for an Interstate designation could be restored by repaying these federal funds, but nobody seems to have a few spare million in loose change lying around.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 31, 2015, 05:30:48 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

The new section appears now on Google Maps, but it is identified inaccurately as US 70. https://goo.gl/maps/2aVYsiY2zwn
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 04, 2015, 05:52:11 PM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on November 05, 2015, 12:57:28 AM
Virginia SR 895 had no federal funds used in its construction, so what prevents its being designated as an Interstate is several million dollars of federal funds that were disbursed for design (including compilation of environmental documentation) decades before it opened.  In principle eligibility for an Interstate designation could be restored by repaying these federal funds, but nobody seems to have a few spare million in loose change lying around.

Or the law could just be changed to either carve out an exception for 895 or just get rid of the rule in question. Honestly the logic of this rule escapes me, since it still allows all sorts of tolled Interstates and even tolled lanes on Interstates; I'm sure whoever came up with it had some reason for doing so at the time, but they're more than likely gone from Congress now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on November 05, 2015, 11:45:21 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906
About time!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 05, 2015, 04:14:33 PM
I agree with lordsutch. That toll road law should be repealed. I see no reason why toll roads can't be Interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 06, 2015, 12:29:41 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).
This is good news, and the rest of the bypass will open summer 2016.

However, Kinston has always been a much worse impediment to traffic flow on US 70 than Goldsboro, which already had a bypass through three quarters of the city. The Kinston Bypass is pretty far behind in the planning process.

Havelock is pretty congested too, but a bypass is already under construction there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on November 06, 2015, 06:40:57 PM
I think the biggest reason for the delay in a Kinston bypass has always been the Neuse river. No matter where they build it, one or several new bridges will have to be built over the river and much of the route lies in the flood plain. Making it a lot more expensive. There is a small possibility that they'll build the bypass north of the city to avoid the river but it would make the route so much longer that most people would probably continue to use the old route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2015, 10:28:41 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906

Public hearings on the route are scheduled for December 7-9. After years stuck in red tape, this project is now on fast track.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=11922
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on November 08, 2015, 11:54:01 AM
At long last FHWA has approved the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the missing section of the Triangle Expressway (NC 540, or crypto-I-540). This clears the way for public hearings leading to selection of a route. Construction is expected in 2018.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=11906

Public hearings on the route are scheduled for December 7-9. After years stuck in red tape, this project is now on fast track.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=11922
Finally. Seriously, NC wanted it I-540 since 2004 I think (2004 was when I was born).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 30, 2015, 01:56:57 PM
NC 581 has been rerouted in Bailey to follow the NC 581 Truck route.  The old route underneath the 8.5 ft underpass will remain in the secondary system.  This was approved by NCDOT in August - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_12.pdf

NC 41 has also been approved in August to follow NC 87 Business into Elizabethtown - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_20.pdf

No idea if either of these changes has been posted in the field...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 04, 2015, 06:38:28 PM
As expected, the 5-year highway bill provides for interstate corridors from Raleigh to Norfolk (US 64 + 17) and from Raleigh to Morehead City (US 70), plus extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40.
http://wunc.org/post/congress-passes-bill-would-create-two-new-interstates-north-carolina-coast#stream/0

So let's get serious. NCDOT has projects underway or in the pipeline for US 70 and for the I-795 extension, but I'm not aware of any serious planning for upgrading US 17. It's the Raleigh-Norfolk link that's had the most discussion on his forum, but it's the US 70 corridor that has the better chance of actually happening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 04, 2015, 08:13:45 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor. I-42 would work really well since it's not currently being used for another route in the interstate system. I know there's talks of using I-44 or I-50 for the Raleigh/Norfolk interstate, but I think I-48 is a better option.

Now I wait for the day when US 74 from Asheville to Charlotte and Wilmington gets designated as an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on December 04, 2015, 08:33:09 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2015, 10:42:56 AM
As expected, the 5-year highway bill provides for interstate corridors from Raleigh to Norfolk (US 64 + 17) and from Raleigh to Morehead City (US 70), plus extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40.
http://wunc.org/post/congress-passes-bill-would-create-two-new-interstates-north-carolina-coast#stream/0

So let's get serious. NCDOT has projects underway or in the pipeline for US 70 and for the I-795 extension, but I'm not aware of any serious planning for upgrading US 17. It's the Raleigh-Norfolk link that's had the most discussion on his forum, but it's the US 70 corridor that has the better chance of actually happening.

70 has a few projects - from the interchanges at Pine Level under construction right now and plans for two interchanges at Wilson Mills to start in 2020.

With the law passed, NC could and just may petition for the 70 corridor to be signed.  The Clayton and soon to be completed Goldsboro bypasses are interstate standard and would connect to the system.

The us 70 bypass of Selma/Smithfield will be interesting as it does not - and to the best of my knowledge has no plans - for a direct connection to 95.  This will create a Breezewood as Vanilla US 70 has a number of signals along it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2015, 06:16:07 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on December 05, 2015, 06:48:27 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.

If it was a north-south route, I would have said it should have a 3di number. There's plenty of even 2di numbers to go around lol.  It is short for a 2di, but it would have greater mileage than I-12, I-83, I-86 Idaho, I-97, etc. It'd be comparable in length to I-22.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2015, 10:14:41 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?

I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.

Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 06, 2015, 03:18:00 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 06, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.

Mark, you're no fun.  ;-p
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on December 07, 2015, 11:15:53 AM
North Carolina has quite a bit of work to do on the US 70 corridor around Kinston, New Bern, and Havelock before it would be able to be signed as interstate.  Is the US 70 bypass even up to interstate standards?  It's been while since I've been out there.  The 3 US 70s around Smithfield will definitely be interesting as well.

I don't doubt that they'll request a 2di rather than a 3di for the corridor whenever that day does come that it's finally all upgraded though. NC seems pretty set on having almost every major road in the state an interstate, which is fine with me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 07, 2015, 11:28:02 AM
Goldsboro and Clayton are built to standards.  Havelock bypass scheduled to begin in 2018.  Super70Corridor.com is a very good source of info.  Look at the meeting minutes for the most recent ncdot update
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 07, 2015, 12:52:32 PM
I wonder what designation they will use for the US 70 corridor.

I-340?
I-340 is fine with me, but NC is likely to ask for a 2di. The route is about 130 miles long, pretty long for a 3di but certainly short for a 2di.
Well the Goldsboro Bypass currently IS NC 44.........

Doesn't mean anything; it was simply an available number that previously existed in the area before and not some idea what the interstate number might be.  The current plan is to switch it to US 70 Bypass when completed, that can easily change at the next AASHTO meeting.

Mark, you're no fun.  ;-p
I wimped out with the new shields I created for the two entries on my Future NC Interstates site, simply designating both routes an I-4? 2di for now. While some have suggested I-50 for the Raleigh to Norfolk route, I have a more interesting suggestion if NCDOT really wants an I-x0 there. You already have one in NC, I-40. Why not re-route I-40 around the Beltline and east on US 64/US 264 to US 17. Yes, it does turn north dramatically near Norfolk, but given its current route, the turn north would be less dramatic than the current turn south to Wilmington. You could make I-40 south of Raleigh a southern version of a current New England N-S interstate (take your pick, I-89, I-91 or I-93) and save an unused interstate number for elsewhere.

My Future NC Interstates site: http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 07, 2015, 06:55:34 PM
I wimped out with the new shields I created for the two entries on my Future NC Interstates site, simply designating both routes an I-4? 2di for now. While some have suggested I-50 for the Raleigh to Norfolk route, I have a more interesting suggestion if NCDOT really wants an I-x0 there. You already have one in NC, I-40. Why not re-route I-40 around the Beltline and east on US 64/US 264 to US 17. Yes, it does turn north dramatically near Norfolk, but given its current route, the turn north would be less dramatic than the current turn south to Wilmington. You could make I-40 south of Raleigh a southern version of a current New England N-S interstate (take your pick, I-89, I-91 or I-93) and save an unused interstate number for elsewhere.

My Future NC Interstates site: http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html (http://www.gribblenation.net/ncfutints/index.html)

I don't see a dramatic rerouting of I-40 happening, people in Wilmington would simply flip their shit.   :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
Here is the current situation on the proposed interstate highway along US 70 from Raleigh to Morehead City, based on my observations and the NCDOT web site. This is a road that will actually be built, although completion is probably way out in the 2030s. Freeway exists (or will exist, when the Goldsboro Bypass is finished next year) on about half the route, and there is at least some preliminary planning on nearly all of the rest.

Section 1, Clayton Bypass. 10.7 miles freeway, interstate grade or close to it, opened in 2008, connecting I-40 at the west end to US 70 Business. Speed limit 70.

Section 2, Wilsons Mills Section. About 6.5 miles divided highway, US 70 Business to Buffalo Road interchange. The road is fenced and has no driveway connections, but there are at least 9 at-grade intersections and 2 traffic signals. Speed limit 55. The STIP calls for replacing the two principal intersections at Wilson Mills with interchanges in construction scheduled for 2020-22. Upgrading the rest of the section to a freeway would not be difficult but it is unfunded.

Section 3, Smithfield Bypass. About 3.5 miles freeway. The narrow shoulders of the road are clearly not interstate grade, so this section would need upgrading. The big problem is that US 70 crosses I-95 with no direct connection (traffic from US 70 to I-95 is shunted onto the old US 70A, which has an obsolete diamond interchange with I-95 and a major stoplight intersection with US 301). Speed limit 55.

Section 4, Pine Level Section. 2.2 miles divided highway, Firetower Road to Stevens Chapel Road, including the intersection with US 70 Business east of Smithfield. Until recently the road has had at-grade intersections, driveway connections, and two stoplights. Speed limit 55. Construction is underway to replace two intersections with interchanges and eliminate all left turns, but it sounds like the result will still have some driveway and side road connections.

Section 5, Princeton Bypass. About 13 miles old-fashioned divided highway, with many at-grade intersections and driveway connections and at least two stoplights. Improvement of this section is completely unfunded; a preliminary cost estimate study has been in progress and should be completed soon. It does not seem likely that this section can be upgraded without moving a significant fraction of the route to a new location.

Section 6, Goldsboro Bypass. 22.3 miles freeway, interstate-grade, on new location north of the city. The western 9.8 miles are complete and the eastern 12.5 miles are scheduled to open in June 2016.

Section 7, Lagrange Bypass. About 2.3 miles freeway with one interchange at NC 903. This is an old section (1970s?); it needs some upgrading to meet interstate standards.

Section 8, Kinston Bypass. Roughly 25 miles. Planning for this major section has been underway since 2009 and many possible routes have been considered and rejected. The alternatives still being considered are all south of the city. Most are on new location over nearly the whole length, but there is also a “close-in”  alternative that would require a (difficult) upgrading of the existing route on the eastern and western approaches to Kinston. The draft environmental impact statement is to be released in early 2016. The project is not funded, so construction is unlikely before the late 2020s.

Section 9, Dover — New Bern Section. 26 miles freeway, speed limit 70. This is an older road, but it appears that it needs only interstate-width shoulders to be added to meet current standards.

Section 10, James City Section. About 2 miles 4-lane divided highway with parallel frontage roads passing through a commercial zone; there are at-grade intersections and several stoplights. A project in planning would upgrade this section to a freeway. The current STIP calls for construction beginning in FY 2021.

Section 11, James City — Havelock Section. About 13 miles 4-lane divided highway. A feasibility study for upgrading this section to a freeway was completed in 2012. The original STIP does not include it, but the amended STIP in fall 2015 calls for right of way acquisition to begin in FY 2025.

Section 12, Havelock Bypass. 10.1 miles freeway on new location south of the city. Right of way is being acquired and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Section 13, unknown. It’s not clear where an interstate would go after passing Havelock. Would it continue to Morehead City? There has been a feasibility study for a project called the Northern Carteret Bypass, which would loop US 70 in an arc well to the north of Morehead City and Beaufort to end in eastern Carteret County. (That seems like an unlikely place for an interstate highway to end.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 12, 2015, 05:26:12 PM
Here is the current situation on the proposed interstate highway along US 70 from Raleigh to Morehead City, based on my observations and the NCDOT web site. This is a road that will actually be built, although completion is probably way out in the 2030s. Freeway exists (or will exist, when the Goldsboro Bypass is finished next year) on about half the route, and there is at least some preliminary planning on nearly all of the rest.

Section 1, Clayton Bypass. 10.7 miles freeway, interstate grade or close to it, opened in 2008, connecting I-40 at the west end to US 70 Business. Speed limit 70.

Section 2, Wilsons Mills Section. About 6.5 miles divided highway, US 70 Business to Buffalo Road interchange. The road is fenced and has no driveway connections, but there are at least 9 at-grade intersections and 2 traffic signals. Speed limit 55. The STIP calls for replacing the two principal intersections at Wilson Mills with interchanges in construction scheduled for 2020-22. Upgrading the rest of the section to a freeway would not be difficult but it is unfunded.


Most of the at-grades can be handled with the construction of the service roads.  The bridges over the Neuse River will be the most troublesome part - specifically the older westbound bridge. 

Section 3, Smithfield Bypass. About 3.5 miles freeway. The narrow shoulders of the road are clearly not interstate grade, so this section would need upgrading. The big problem is that US 70 crosses I-95 with no direct connection (traffic from US 70 to I-95 is shunted onto the old US 70A, which has an obsolete diamond interchange with I-95 and a major stoplight intersection with US 301). Speed limit 55.


I believe the 55 mph is just because of the short length of the segment.   The interchange with 95 is a six ramp partial cloverleaf.  Some upgrades from the current 70 West to 95 could be possible for a more direct connection.  However, 70 East to 95 would not be possible.  I think this is going to be a new-Breezewood.

Section 4, Pine Level Section. 2.2 miles divided highway, Firetower Road to Stevens Chapel Road, including the intersection with US 70 Business east of Smithfield. Until recently the road has had at-grade intersections, driveway connections, and two stoplights. Speed limit 55. Construction is underway to replace two intersections with interchanges and eliminate all left turns, but it sounds like the result will still have some driveway and side road connections.

Section 5, Princeton Bypass. About 13 miles old-fashioned divided highway, with many at-grade intersections and driveway connections and at least two stoplights. Improvement of this section is completely unfunded; a preliminary cost estimate study has been in progress and should be completed soon. It does not seem likely that this section can be upgraded without moving a significant fraction of the route to a new location.


The lights along the Princeton bypass is where proposed interchanges will be located.  IIRC, ROW is already preserved for eventual interchanges there.

Section 6, Goldsboro Bypass. 22.3 miles freeway, interstate-grade, on new location north of the city. The western 9.8 miles are complete and the eastern 12.5 miles are scheduled to open in June 2016.

Section 7, Lagrange Bypass. About 2.3 miles freeway with one interchange at NC 903. This is an old section (1970s?); it needs some upgrading to meet interstate standards.

the Goldsboro bypass is tying in directly to the LaGrange Bypass.  The construction zone does include some shoulder widening west of the 903 interchange.

Section 8, Kinston Bypass. Roughly 25 miles. Planning for this major section has been underway since 2009 and many possible routes have been considered and rejected. The alternatives still being considered are all south of the city. Most are on new location over nearly the whole length, but there is also a “close-in”  alternative that would require a (difficult) upgrading of the existing route on the eastern and western approaches to Kinston. The draft environmental impact statement is to be released in early 2016. The project is not funded, so construction is unlikely before the late 2020s.

Section 9, Dover — New Bern Section. 26 miles freeway, speed limit 70. This is an older road, but it appears that it needs only interstate-width shoulders to be added to meet current standards.

Section 10, James City Section. About 2 miles 4-lane divided highway with parallel frontage roads passing through a commercial zone; there are at-grade intersections and several stoplights. A project in planning would upgrade this section to a freeway. The current STIP calls for construction beginning in FY 2021.

Section 11, James City — Havelock Section. About 13 miles 4-lane divided highway. A feasibility study for upgrading this section to a freeway was completed in 2012. The original STIP does not include it, but the amended STIP in fall 2015 calls for right of way acquisition to begin in FY 2025.

Section 12, Havelock Bypass. 10.1 miles freeway on new location south of the city. Right of way is being acquired and construction is scheduled to begin in 2018.

Section 13, unknown. It’s not clear where an interstate would go after passing Havelock. Would it continue to Morehead City? There has been a feasibility study for a project called the Northern Carteret Bypass, which would loop US 70 in an arc well to the north of Morehead City and Beaufort to end in eastern Carteret County. (That seems like an unlikely place for an interstate highway to end.)


The Northern Carteret Bypass is the most likely choice.  My understanding is that the bypass was to tie into 70 around NC 101.  With the dualization of the channel bridge connecting Morehead to Beaufort - the connection to the Port of Morehead City (and it's not much of a port) will be similar to 40's connection to the Port of Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 09:03:47 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 17, 2015, 11:56:43 AM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 17, 2015, 05:27:57 PM
Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 17, 2015, 06:12:59 PM
Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.

Yes, the more the better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 17, 2015, 06:38:13 PM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.

As far as I can tell from its minutes, the US 70 Corridor Commission has never discussed a number for the proposed interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 18, 2015, 12:27:18 PM
I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.

As far as I can tell from its minutes, the US 70 Corridor Commission has never discussed a number for the proposed interstate.
Well, don't be surprised if it comes up eventually, and it most likely will.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on December 18, 2015, 12:30:03 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on December 18, 2015, 03:49:23 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
North Carolina hasn't been losing its temper though. Connecting the freeway sections of I-26 northwest of Asheville to the Tennessee state line has been waiting to be funded since I was born in 2004, and they haven't gone haywire. They seem pretty patient.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 18, 2015, 06:32:45 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.

Actually, NC has been fairly aggressive from the beginning. Remember that the original Interstate plan short-changed North Carolina; there was no I-77, I-40 ended at Greensboro, and there was no interstate connection to the state capital, Raleigh. NC had to push for all of those extensions early on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:13:49 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.

Actually, NC has been fairly aggressive from the beginning. Remember that the original Interstate plan short-changed North Carolina; there was no I-77, I-40 ended at Greensboro, and there was no interstate connection to the state capital, Raleigh. NC had to push for all of those extensions early on.

Yes and No.  The state did sit on the sidelines throughout the 50s. Their position was that they wanted Interstate funds to improve their own highways. (This is covered in Paving Tobacco Roads)   They did not apply for any loops and Spurs.  It wasn't until the 1960s - specifically the 1968 extensions - did they really get into the game.  NC petitioned / proposed numerous corridors at that time.  Greensboro to Wilmington, including a split that roughly followed NC 24 to Morehead City, Charlotte to Wilmington, and a complex of Spurs connecting 85 to downtown Durham and Raleigh which eventually laid the groundwork for I-40, NC147, etc. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:25:07 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

I thought that as well but you have to shoehorn through some development or make a high speed trumpet to trumpet connection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2015, 09:25:30 PM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

I thought that as well but you have to shoehorn through some development or make a high speed trumpet to trumpet connection.


I'd argue that an interchange between I-95 and current US 70 wouldn't need all movements:

I-95 NB to US 70 WB is not necessary...using I-40 WB gets you directly to Clayton and points west.  Could also be argued that I-95 SB to US 70 WB is not essential either because of US 64 for Raleigh.

I-95 SB to US 70 EB is not necessary because of I-795.

Getting a high speed ramp from I-95 NB to US 70 EB either at the current overpass or at US 70 Bus (behind JRs) is probably doable but US 70 WB to 95 SB could be more challenging especially if you didn't want a flyover coming in as a left merge onto 95 SB.

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 22, 2015, 09:14:15 AM
NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

I thought that as well but you have to shoehorn through some development or make a high speed trumpet to trumpet connection.


I'd argue that an interchange between I-95 and current US 70 wouldn't need all movements:

I-95 NB to US 70 WB is not necessary...using I-40 WB gets you directly to Clayton and points west.  Could also be argued that I-95 SB to US 70 WB is not essential either because of US 64 for Raleigh.

I-95 SB to US 70 EB is not necessary because of I-795.

Getting a high speed ramp from I-95 NB to US 70 EB either at the current overpass or at US 70 Bus (behind JRs) is probably doable but US 70 WB to 95 SB could be more challenging especially if you didn't want a flyover coming in as a left merge onto 95 SB.

Mike

Similar reasoning didn't stop a full access cloverleaf from being built at 95 and the US 264 freeway.  There's full access to the east via US 64 in Rocky Mount and the US 264A exit to the north cuts the corner.  When I would travel that way to Goldsboro rarely did I ever see folks entering 264 W via 95S or exit onto 95N via 264 E but the ramps were still there.

Of course a lot more space there too
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2015, 05:05:18 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on December 22, 2015, 09:28:08 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.

I would have preferred using I-495 for US 64/264 from I-440 to I-95, near Wilson. US 64 from I-440 (or the split in Zebulon), and US 17 to Norfolk could simply use a 2-digit number, like I-44 or I-46.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 23, 2015, 12:15:08 PM
I think the Interstate 495 freeway should have been numbered 695, then it could be extended into Virginia without duplication, and these discussions about renumbering 495 to a 2-digit Interstate highway would be rendered moot.

I would have preferred using I-495 for US 64/264 from I-440 to I-95, near Wilson. US 64 from I-440 (or the split in Zebulon), and US 17 to Norfolk could simply use a 2-digit number, like I-44 or I-46.
Which is what they've been discussing anyway. I'd prefer I-46 to avoid duplication with the OKC/Tulsa/St Louis interstate, but I-44 would also work just as well there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2015, 04:42:27 PM
If the US 64 corridor was to have a 2-digit Interstate designation, it should have had one from the get-go (instead of using the 495 designation). The same as the Raleigh Beltway, which should have been 640 to begin with, instead of temporarily, then permanently, numbering it 540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 23, 2015, 05:20:35 PM
I agree. However, I think NCDOT will be looking for a designation for the US 70 corridor a long time before the US 64 corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on December 26, 2015, 05:11:27 PM
Yeah they'll definitely request interstate designation. NC is going wild with building freeways these last few decades.  Wish they were this aggressive back in the 50s-60s when the Feds were handing out money like candy for interstates.
In the 1950s NC was a much less populated state. The Northeast and Midwest had a much bigger proportion of interstates. Most of the South and West are now underserved by interstates
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on December 28, 2015, 05:38:18 PM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 29, 2015, 11:30:41 AM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

I would say both routes qualify for a two-digit interstate number.  Heck, we have countless examples of short two-digit interstates located in one state.  I'm fine with anything between 40-64.   :nod:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 29, 2015, 11:43:24 AM
I have mentioned before in another thread about having the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor be numbered I-46 (although in my post in Fictional Highways, the routing was different).  The US 70 corridor should be I-42, if an I-number needs to be assigned to this.

I would say both routes qualify for a two-digit interstate number.  Heck, we have countless examples of short two-digit interstates located in one state.  I'm fine with anything between 40-64.   :nod:
As am I, although I'd prefer anything in the 40s range.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on December 30, 2015, 08:53:26 PM
Although I'd be fine with a 2di number for the US-70 corridor I would think it would be better to save a 2di number for a longer multi-state route (man if only they could figure out a way to get I-30 from Little Rock to New Bern, but I digress into fictional territory, lol).

I would think that an odd 3di would be fine for the corridor, which would be a spur off of a major 2di anyway. As someone else had stated, 340 is available in NC and would be perfect for this corridor.

Man, and to think, it could have been I-40 had things gone differently back in the 60's and 70's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 31, 2015, 08:06:01 AM
Although I'd be fine with a 2di number for the US-70 corridor I would think it would be better to save a 2di number for a longer multi-state route (man if only they could figure out a way to get I-30 from Little Rock to New Bern, but I digress into fictional territory, lol).

I would think that an odd 3di would be fine for the corridor, which would be a spur off of a major 2di anyway. As someone else had stated, 340 is available in NC and would be perfect for this corridor.

Man, and to think, it could have been I-40 had things gone differently back in the 60's and 70's.

Save a 2di number till when exactly?  Are there big plans for more interstates that will need these spare numbers too? 

I get what you are saying but there is no plans for these numbers anytime, exact same reason why Texas went ahead and snagged I-2, because it's available.  Creating super-long 3di would be foolish when a 2di is available and would still be longer than several other Intrastate 2di, I-40 to Morehead City is roughly 130 miles.

Remember, back in the '60s and '70s, North Carolina had roughly 5 million people, today it's double that.  Needs were very different back then as oppose today now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 01, 2016, 05:48:43 PM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 02, 2016, 10:04:36 PM
Hey, CanesFan, I have a question about Raleigh.  What are they doing to the Saunders St. interchange on I-40?  I found it odd that they have the second ramp signs covered up in both directions of I-40, does that mean they're only going to have an Exit 298 now instead of 298A-B?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 02, 2016, 10:46:47 PM
Hey, CanesFan, I have a question about Raleigh.  What are they doing to the Saunders St. interchange on I-40?  I found it odd that they have the second ramp signs covered up in both directions of I-40, does that mean they're only going to have an Exit 298 now instead of 298A-B?

Brent, I'm fairly certain it's only a result of ramps being closed as they are rebuilt.  We rarely travel the lower half of the beltline so I'm not exactly sure.  Brian would know - ask on southeast roads on facebook - he's on more often there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 02, 2016, 10:55:28 PM
Oh, okay, gotcha.  Thank you.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 03, 2016, 02:02:19 PM
I actually drove thru there this morning (US-401 North to I-40 East). The on ramp was open, but couldn't see much else.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on January 03, 2016, 05:32:35 PM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html

After this is all said and done Eastern NC might have one of the highest miles of interstate highway per capita in the country.

I'm in favor of all of them except that Raleigh-Norfolk corridor.  That one seems to offer little benefit and would likely carry a large cost that would be better spent on other NC road projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 23, 2016, 09:12:25 PM
Of the proposed interstate projects in eastern NC, it's clear that only the US 70 corridor has a high priority. It will get built. The others ... not for a long time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Buffaboy on January 23, 2016, 09:39:12 PM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 24, 2016, 02:53:16 AM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

Which section of I-77 where you on and what time of day?  I-77 is horriblely underpowered with only 2 lanes each way North of I-485.  Traffic there can be a nightmare.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 24, 2016, 08:35:45 AM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

Then you didn't drive on it during rush hour.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on January 24, 2016, 04:10:03 PM
Why does CLT need express lanes? From when I was there over the summer, the traffic on I-77 seemed to move freely.

77 is the most congested highway in the state. It's way overcapacity in both directions even off peak hours. The only part that flows smoothly is between 85 and 485 and that's because it's the only section with 4 lanes on each side. The part south of 85 needs to be at least 5 lanes each side but is currently only 3.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 03, 2016, 12:01:53 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MazdaStrider on February 03, 2016, 12:52:31 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)


That means there is going to be a complex interchange between I-40, US 70 and NC 540 southeast of Raleigh. I wonder how will location look like when it is open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 03, 2016, 01:54:07 PM
NCDOT has chosen preferred alternatives for Complete 540 project around Raleigh:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12208)


That means there is going to be a complex interchange between I-40, US 70 and NC 540 southeast of Raleigh. I wonder how will location look like when it is open.

No surprise at this choice. Construction could begin by the end of 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2016, 03:00:06 PM
I wish they would do away with that toll law so all of NC 540 could be Interstate 540 the entire way around the beltway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 03:34:23 PM
What toll law?  There's nothing in Federal law stopping NC from requesting adding 540 as an Interstate.  If there's a "toll law", it's at the state level.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 03:38:28 PM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2016, 04:25:11 PM
I thought there was a law prohibiting toll roads from becoming Interstates, on an account of how they were funded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this law the reason Virginia's Highway 895 is a state highway and not an Interstate? I also assumed this law is why the toll portions of the 540 beltway also have to be a state highway and not an Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 03, 2016, 05:05:37 PM
There's a general prohibition against toll roads receiving Federal highway funding, but Federal law does allow new toll roads *NOT* built with Federal funding to be added to the Interstate system if they're logical extensions and are constructed to Interstate standards.  Relatively recent examples include I-185 in SC and I-355 in the outer Chicago suburbs.

The reason for why VA 895 wasn't added was because Federal highway funding was used in its planning.  This may be the same reason why 540 south of RTP wasn't added as an Interstate, either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 03, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
I wish they would do away with that toll law so all of NC 540 could be Interstate 540 the entire way around the beltway.
Although NCDOT is famous for upgrading freeways to interstate status, I don't think it has any intention of asking for an interstate designation for the toll sections of the beltway. Once upon a time there was a thought that the completed beltway would be renunbered I-640, but that I believe that idea is dead now that everyone is accustomed to calling the road 540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 04, 2016, 11:10:55 AM
My attempt to describe the current state and future needs and plans of the three new Interstate corridors (two new / one extended) here in North Carolina:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-fast-act-brings-two-new-interstate.html
WRAL has a report about upgrades planned for the US 70 corridor. The report says that NCDOT will be putting up 'Future Interstate Corridor' signs soon:
http://www.wral.com/us-70-expansion-could-soon-be-reality/15305954/ (http://www.wral.com/us-70-expansion-could-soon-be-reality/15305954/)

This blog piece discusses possible numbers for the future interstate corridors:
http://letsgetmoving.org/rta-blog/raleigh-norfolk-495-44-50-89-56/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/rta-blog/raleigh-norfolk-495-44-50-89-56/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on February 04, 2016, 11:11:30 AM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.

I too find this interchange to be fascinating.

The Environmental Impact Statement does show a proposed design. It looks like a cross between a turbine and a giant high speed three and a half level stacked incomplete roundabout, with the existing cloverleaf kept plus three new ones. The turbiney-roundabouty thingy has two weaves shown, plus two weaves between cloverleafs.

The weave on I-40E is long so it would probably be OK but it's a little disappointing to me that US70W -> NC540W doesn't get a flyover.
(http://www.reprehensible.net/~orulz/540interchange.jpg)
Something tells me this design is still a work in progress.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf - see the one marked "Orange to Green"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 04, 2016, 07:16:55 PM
That design is quite fascinating
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on February 04, 2016, 08:04:56 PM
You can make a U turn on it   :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on February 05, 2016, 11:22:25 AM
Since the Raleigh-Norfolk Interstate runs east-west, an even number makes a lot more sense.

As for the I-40/NC 540/US 70 interchange, I don't mind the C/D road for I-40 east, although I would prefer a flyover from US 70 west to NC 540 west, as well as from I-40 east to NC 540 east.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MazdaStrider on February 05, 2016, 11:30:13 AM
On the subject of 540, I had come up with an interchange concept (http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/interchanges/i040-i540-us70.htm) several years ago for a theoretical 40/540/70 East junction.  I may clean it up for better presentation.

I too find this interchange to be fascinating.

The Environmental Impact Statement does show a proposed design. It looks like a cross between a turbine and a giant high speed three and a half level stacked incomplete roundabout, with the existing cloverleaf kept plus three new ones. The turbiney-roundabouty thingy has two weaves shown, plus two weaves between cloverleafs.

The weave on I-40E is long so it would probably be OK but it's a little disappointing to me that US70W -> NC540W doesn't get a flyover.
(http://www.reprehensible.net/~orulz/540interchange.jpg)
Something tells me this design is still a work in progress.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf - see the one marked "Orange to Green"



Interesting design. Looks fascinating, but I have the feeling this won't be the final design as there may be a traffic mess
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 14, 2016, 02:20:52 PM
I missed this: the western section of the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass opened ten days ago:
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Western-section-of-US-70-Goldsboro-Bypass-opens-Saturday-333651791.html

This section was to be signed as NC 44 until the entire bypass is complete (photos, anyone?).

Did get down there yesterday.  The highway is currently signed NC 44 if you are headed eastbound. However, westbound west of the 795 interchange it is signed as US 70 Bypass West. Signs at the NC 581 interchange already read US 70 Bypass.  No changes to signs at the US 117 and Wayne MEmorial Drive interchanges.  (Didn't get on 795 to see how it looked like there).  I and a few others have mentioned that it is to Interstate standards.  It may need an exception for one lengthy bridge over a swamp between 581 and the 795 interchange.  Here are some photos.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1578/24396509114_9a7bf145fd_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DaQucu)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DaQucu) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
70 East approaching the bypass - these are temporary signs until the entire bypass opens.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1710/24659495439_e586d2b939_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5mSt)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5mSt) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Just east of the NC 581 Interchange - temporary NC 44 shield.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1553/25000774176_0f35079d94_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/E6ev9C)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/E6ev9C) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Westbound at NC 581.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1554/24731582270_70af11b623_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DFrPLS)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DFrPLS) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Eastbound approaching I-795.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1561/24400264843_bb05e900f2_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/DbaJDr)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/DbaJDr) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Eastbound at 795.  This is actually an impressive interchange - an cell camera doesn't give it justice.  Will need to come back and take more shots.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1489/24659492199_c8388948c5_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5kUB)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/Dz5kUB) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Westbound between 795 and 581.  This is the bridge with the narrow interior shoulder that may be of concern.  It is rather lengthy so a possible exception?  I didn't measure the length.


I've added the photos to my album that covered the opening of the original segment of the bypass here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 15, 2016, 11:49:30 AM
According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 15, 2016, 12:46:05 PM
According to the minutes of the Super 70 Corridor Commission. Future Interstate corridor signs have been ordered and depending on what month's notes you read, will be delivered and posted some time in February to May 2016.

Signs will be at the termini of the corridor and at county lines.

There are no clues in to what the number will be.  Keep an eye out for the signs!

Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 15, 2016, 07:33:15 PM
If they are going to give a 2di number to a highway in North Carolina, why would it not go to US 64?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 15, 2016, 08:27:10 PM
Perhaps because the US 70 corridor is both further along in planning and actually has the traffic volume to support such a designation?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 16, 2016, 07:03:17 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 17, 2016, 04:54:55 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on February 20, 2016, 08:10:23 AM
Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 20, 2016, 12:31:20 PM
Quote from: Katavia
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on February 20, 2016, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Katavia
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

Doesn't mean they couldn't keep this one as 44.  There's precedent for multiple legs of the same Interstate route separated by more than one state.  76, 84, 86, and 88 all fit that bill.
No reason to duplicate numbers since 42, 46 are available and fit in the grid. Unless there is some grand scheme to connect i44 from Raleigh to St Louis
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on February 20, 2016, 01:02:51 PM
Per the US 70 Directors Report for Oct-Dec 2015 (pg. 5) there is a number range anticipated...
http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/October%20and%20November%20Directors%20Report.pdf

Quote
An official number for the new proposed Interstate along US 70 will be assigned by ASHTO [sic] at the May 2016 meeting.  It is anticipated it will be between 40 and 60.  Signs are now being fabricated and should be available by mid-March.  At that time we will begin posting signs.

42 would make the most sense based solely on grid placement - it is unlikely another E-W interstate would be between I-40 and US 70, but due to the proximity of NC 42 they could opt for 44 instead (they are already using NC 44 for a piece of this anyway).  It will also be curious to see if the number for the corridor east of Rocky Mount to Norfolk will be assigned and if so to what number.

Mike
Interstate 44 already exists though... Maybe 46?

This new route would be mostly south of the existing I-44, though. I-42 seems like the logical option, as NC hasn't shown any fear of heaving similarly-numbered routes nearby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 20, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.

I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 20, 2016, 04:57:46 PM
I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think NCDOT will be applying for an interstate designation on either route anytime soon. So we can enjoy this discussion for quite a while yet.
And wrong I am, it seems. The 70 Corridor task force says that a number "will be assigned" at the May AASHTO meeting. NCDOT has until April 18 to apply for a number. "Future Interstate Corridor" signs have already been ordered, so they won't have a number, at least not initially.
I'd think that they will try to get a number for both corridors just to have it on the record.  I think 70 is easier to get a consensus for a number where as 64 may be a little more difficult because of 495.  Does NC drop 495 after two years in favor of one number throughout? And how will that be viewed.
Think it would be somewhat ironic if AASHTO chooses 44 for the US 70 Corridor route since the group pushing the US 64/US 17 Raleigh-Norfolk corridor route had suggested that number for its proposal. IMO either 42 or 44 would work for US 70. I would have an I-5x for US 64 since that number should be higher than that for the US 70 route and all the even 5x numbers are available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 06:44:42 AM
Interstate 11 should be a designation

I-11: From Vegas to Havelock

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 25, 2016, 03:55:15 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 05:24:52 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2016, 06:28:01 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: national highway 1 on February 25, 2016, 06:32:23 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1


Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on February 25, 2016, 06:34:07 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.
Maybe US 70 should be Interstate 11, the road to Las Vegas!

SM-G360T1


Why would it be I-11? It's already applied a proposal to US 93 in Arizona and Nevada, and it wouldn't exist in North Carolina because US 70 is an east-west route and plus it violates the guidelines of the interstate grid.
Don't worry sir, I scrapped 11 and decided that I-48 should be the designation for US 70!!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 25, 2016, 06:36:24 PM
Actually they could sign it into law.  All they need to do is pick another I-11 for this route and a Bud Schuster type of those who support the I-69ECW BS do it and AASHTO ruling cannot do diddly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on February 25, 2016, 08:44:19 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.

I'm sorry that the folks in Greenville aren't on a 2di interstate but their city is kind of positioned in an awkward place to be on an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 25, 2016, 08:45:41 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

actually i wouldn't be surprised if 795 does get extended west to Zebulon when that happens.  Upgrading 264 from Zebulon to 95 wouldn't be difficult - just shoulder work for the most part.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on February 29, 2016, 11:17:49 PM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.



Maybe they can get 264 to get signed as a 3di spur of I-95. Maybe 195.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 01, 2016, 06:58:25 AM
Lane closures on Neuse and Trent River Bridges from today through June 15th (http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Lane-closures-on-two-popular-bridges-starting-today-370612161.html)


Quote
Closures will be happening on the N.C. 55 / U.S. 70 bridge over the Trent River, and the N.C. 55 / U.S. 17 bridge over the Neuse River will have lane closures beginning at 9 a.m., Tuesday.[/font]One lane will be closed 24/7, and at least one lane will remain open from now until June 15th.
DOT crews will be replacing expansion joints and lay down a protective coating on both bridges during the next few months.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 10:49:13 AM
Maybe when 495 gets extended to 95, the 795 designation could be extended to 495. I doubt that would happen though.

The folks who want an interstate number on US 264 are in Greenville; they want a number that covers the road all the way to their town.



Maybe they can get 264 to get signed as a 3di spur of I-95. Maybe 195.
The question would be is worth it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 01, 2016, 04:20:21 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2016, 04:32:42 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 01, 2016, 05:32:12 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2016, 06:48:37 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

The substandard section is about 20 miles long.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on March 01, 2016, 09:30:44 PM
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

Doesn't look as bad as the section of I-70 through Wheeling, WV, which I don't believe there are any plans to fix.

North Carolina's representatives in Congress just need to step up, legislate that section as I-26, and put an end to this future interstate nonsense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2016, 03:37:11 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on March 02, 2016, 04:36:01 PM
Whether it is worth it depends on whether or not one thinks North Carolina needs more Interstates.
North Carolina loves interstates, that's for sure. I don't really think there's anything fundamentally wrong with that. However, the state is piling up a huge backlog of "Future I-xx" mileage that needs to be upgraded to interstate standards. I'd like to see some progress on those upgrades, and right now I'm not seeing much of it. A good place to start would be the section of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
They still haven't finished I-26? Ncdot step your game up.
The section of US 19/23 north of Asheville is well short of interstate standards. Here's the sign at the south end of the section, coming off I-240 northbound:
https://goo.gl/maps/Spo9np63WD82

The substandard section is about 20 miles long.
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 07:12:24 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on March 02, 2016, 07:32:40 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.
What's wrong with Mars Hill to Woodfin segment, tight shoulders? I understand the need for the Ashville Connecter and yes that could not come soon enough.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on March 02, 2016, 08:18:01 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.

I'm not referring to getting funding and building the upgrade now, I'm referring to getting legislation overriding FHWA and allowing that section to be signed as I-26 without any 'future' banners, even though that section is not up to interstate standards at the moment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 02, 2016, 10:10:41 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.

So I'm guessing that once the Mars Hill to Woodfin and the Asheville Connector, it can all be signed as I-26 right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 10:35:33 PM
Everyone knows that it takes many years to study, fund and construct any highway improvement. It would be nice to do it faster, but that's the way it will always be.

I'm not referring to getting funding and building the upgrade now, I'm referring to getting legislation overriding FHWA and allowing that section to be signed as I-26 without any 'future' banners, even though that section is not up to interstate standards at the moment.

It's not really that big of a deal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 02, 2016, 10:39:08 PM
Finishing I-26 through Asheville alone is estimated to be a $600-$800 million project. From Woodfin to Mars Hill will be another $184 million. So this is essentially a billion dollar project. Not something the state of NC will take on lightly. The most expensive segment, the new bridge over the French Broad River, is pretty badly needed, but for everything else, I don't see a need to rush it. I-26 from Asheville to Johnson City is frankly not that important of a transportation corridor.

Mars Hill to Woodfin upgrades are on the 2016-2025 STIP, slated for construction in 2022.  Asheville Connector, recently added to the STIP, is slated for 2023 construction.  So the good news is funding has been found and are on the calendar.

So I'm guessing that once the Mars Hill to Woodfin and the Asheville Connector, it can all be signed as I-26 right?

Either actually.  If the upgrades finish first then it can already by signed; if they complete around same time, so much the better. If it was reversed, they probably could have gotten a waiver then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 02, 2016, 11:21:30 PM
I-77 Toll Lane project in jeopardy? NCDOT issued a short press release today stating governor has asked them to reassess the I-77 Toll Lanes due to bankruptcy of Texas toll project: https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12273 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12273)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 05:40:42 AM
@bob7374 It is in jeopardy! You know that the toll road project is dangerous to the LKN community and all of N.C.?

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 03, 2016, 02:17:16 PM
So this company has already bankrupted on the Indiana Toll Road and now TX-130. Bodes well for I-77 lanes doesn't it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 03, 2016, 03:10:34 PM
Maybe some other toll company can pick up the slack.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 03:16:27 PM
No toll companies no more!! The Transportation Departments could maintain roads!!!

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 03, 2016, 04:37:26 PM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 03, 2016, 06:23:04 PM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2016, 08:46:26 PM
Quote
But what about Hillsborough?

Not between Charlotte and Greensboro.  And not as high of a need as the segment just awarded.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on March 04, 2016, 12:41:54 AM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1



They have to get to that segment eventually. When this contract is completed, that will be the only section between Durham and Charlotte that hasn't been renovated since it was originally built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 04, 2016, 10:42:09 AM
NCDOT has awarded a $108M contract for the last widening project on I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12276
But what about Hillsborough?

SM-G360T1



They have to get to that segment eventually. When this contract is completed, that will be the only section between Durham and Charlotte that hasn't been renovated since it was originally built.
There's no funded project in the current 2016-2025 STIP to widen I-85 in Hillsborough. There is, however, a contract to widen I-40 to 6 lanes from I-85 to the Durham Freeway (Future I-885) starting in 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 04, 2016, 01:44:59 PM
Question about I-95 north and south of Kenly, NC.  As you all are aware the frequency of interchanges along I-95 south of Kenly is far more than it is north of there.  Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Apparently this has to do with the fact that I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock in the early 80's where the other section south of there was built almost twenty years earlier.  Of course traffic back in the 1960's were built to different standards then they were in the 1970's and 1980's as the overall counts were lower.  Plus US 301 runs closely to I-95 which was more likely done that way so that all locals who live along US 301 would have immediate access to the interstate instead of like along the toll roads and turnpikes where you have to travel miles to get to the nearest intersection to connect to an interchange of the toll facility.  That is why you have access to unnumbered roads such as Truck Stop Road and Flowers Road unlike the rest of I-95 that has only interchanges with either NC or US routes. 

Am I correct on the hypothesis?  Is it mainly because of both the times and the fact that US 301 is within a mile of I-95 south of Kenly to Eastover and to the north of it US 301 is several miles from the interstate? Or is it more of one over the other?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 04, 2016, 07:49:41 PM
Question about I-95 north and south of Kenly, NC.  As you all are aware the frequency of interchanges along I-95 south of Kenly is far more than it is north of there.  Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Apparently this has to do with the fact that I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock in the early 80's where the other section south of there was built almost twenty years earlier.  Of course traffic back in the 1960's were built to different standards then they were in the 1970's and 1980's as the overall counts were lower.  Plus US 301 runs closely to I-95 which was more likely done that way so that all locals who live along US 301 would have immediate access to the interstate instead of like along the toll roads and turnpikes where you have to travel miles to get to the nearest intersection to connect to an interchange of the toll facility.  That is why you have access to unnumbered roads such as Truck Stop Road and Flowers Road unlike the rest of I-95 that has only interchanges with either NC or US routes. 

Am I correct on the hypothesis?  Is it mainly because of both the times and the fact that US 301 is within a mile of I-95 south of Kenly to Eastover and to the north of it US 301 is several miles from the interstate? Or is it more of one over the other?

You've placed a lot of thought into this JP - I hope you haven't lost much sleep - and the answers can be found in earlier threads.  Kenly to Gold Rock was opened in 1978 and Kenly to Eastover was completed by I believe 1960.  The first sections was basically a US 301 bypass of Benson and Dunn.

as for why exits were built who knows -
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 04, 2016, 08:01:35 PM
Not really I built all this over time. For years my parents went down to Florida when I grew up in New Jersey, so I got to see it all.  Well mostly.  I remember when the Kenly to Gold Rock Segment was not completed and you had to use US 301, however I did not realize it was in 78 when that opened.  Although we did vacation in Florida in 1978 at Jekyl Island, GA one year after 8th Grade Graduation, and now that its mentioned it might of been that year it opened.

I do know for sure that the Fayetteville Bypass was completed either in 1981 or 1982.  The Georgia segment by Brunswick was around the same time as that was the last segment of I-95 in the Peach State to finally open to traffic.  So it was not until my HS Graduation trip when it was all completed from Delaware to Florida that I first saw it.  I did not go to Florida in 1982 for sure as we just went to Williamsburg then as my dad was not ahead financially that year, so we went closer to home.

So yes, I guess my frequent trips to Florida were in the early 80's and all the 70's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 04, 2016, 11:08:05 PM
Quote from: roadman65
Where interchanges are almost every mile between BL I-95 for Fayetteville and the US 301 interchange in Kenly, from north of US 301 to the VA state line they are on average (not accurate) probably five miles apart with the section between Kenly and Gold Rock about eight miles apart.

Fayetteville to Kenly:  ~51 miles, 22 interchanges.  ~2.3mi average.
Kenly to Gold Rock:  ~38 miles, 8 interchanges.  ~4.8mi average.
Kenly to VA Line:  ~75 miles, 16 interchanges.  ~4.7mi average.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 05, 2016, 01:35:52 PM
Why was BL 95 designated anyway? Couldn't the road have just remained designated US 301?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 06, 2016, 08:42:13 PM
Why was BL 95 designated anyway? Couldn't the road have just remained designated US 301?

At the time (1978), they were established to link a gap in Interstate 95, the same with Interstate 85 between Lexington and High Point.  When the interstate was finally completed (1983), it was left in place, mainly for the businesses along it.

Do they provide real purpose today... I don't believe so.  Each location where a business route exists is concurrency with a U.S. Route (in North Carolina).   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on March 11, 2016, 02:02:32 PM
Since the proposal to toll I-95 fell through, as there been any updates on widening parts of I-95 in North Carolina? I'm surprised that the FAMPO hasn't at least submitted the section of I-95 in Cumberland County to be widened, or looked into the use of HOT lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 11, 2016, 03:42:10 PM
I wish toll roads were freeways

From Concord Telephone, Yadkin Valley

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 11, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Since the proposal to toll I-95 fell through, as there been any updates on widening parts of I-95 in North Carolina? I'm surprised that the FAMPO hasn't at least submitted the section of I-95 in Cumberland County to be widened, or looked into the use of HOT lanes.

The 2016-2026 STIP only lists pavement rehabilitation and some bridge replacements along I-95.  So no widening plans on the horizon.

HOT lanes wouldn't work on I-95, not enough commuter traffic to justify it.  A couple years ago though NCDOT did have a similar idea in mind for I-95 by building inner travel lanes that would be tolled and go 75mph.  That was quickly shot down by the state legislators when they both rejected 75mph speed limits and that toll plan as being too expensive to implement on entire route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on March 12, 2016, 02:51:07 PM
The tolls were the best chance at getting 95 upgraded in NC.  It looks like it's going to just remain as is now. We probably won't see it upgraded in our lifetimes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on March 12, 2016, 03:18:27 PM
The tolls were the best chance at getting 95 upgraded in NC.  It looks like it's going to just remain as is now. We probably won't see it upgraded in our lifetimes.
I will in my lifetime  ;-)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:22:33 PM
It looks like they are going to have to find another funding mechanism if they want to upgrade Interstate 95. Maybe they should just do the upgrades in several different phases.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ReeseFerlautoI74/85 on March 14, 2016, 05:36:10 PM


It looks like they are going to have to find another funding mechanism since we spent some fu*king Gas Tax s*it if they want to upgrade Interstate 95. Maybe they should just do the upgrades in several different phases.

Tax the rich will save us money!!


From Concord Telephone, Yadkin Valley

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 23, 2016, 10:47:30 PM
I found this FYI on the Super70 Corridor site:


Quote
March 30, 201610:00 AM - 11:00 AM
Unveiling Future Interstate Designation Sign-Enter Hwy. 70 Goldsboro Bypass at Parkstown Rd. Ramp (http://www.super70corridor.com/site/Default.aspx?PageID=2&PageType=17&DomainID=4&ModuleInstanceID=1&EventDateID=71)




That's all I've been able to dig up on that, however.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 23, 2016, 10:52:00 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 23, 2016, 11:16:36 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:

It has been my understanding there will be a blank shield on it, but who knows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 24, 2016, 10:22:14 AM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:

It has been my understanding there will be a blank shield on it, but who knows.
There you go!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 24, 2016, 06:10:56 PM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
The signs will simply say "Future Interstate Corridor." I don't think there will be a shield, blank or otherwise, but I'll be interested to see. No word on what number will be requested.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 24, 2016, 07:32:54 PM
Is there a good site to see the history of interstate openings in NC?  With my soo to be move from California to Morganton, I have done the usual study of USGS topo maps and Historic Arials.  A few things that stand out to me as cool:  I-40 from NC 18 in Morganton to west of Hickory is shown as under construction on both thew 1958 and 1964 USGS maps, this section is very substandard but it is being upgraded now.  The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool.  Having US 64 and 70 concurrent from Morganton to Hickory into the 1970's with the current arrangement having US 64 go north to Lenoir, going out of grid and crossing US 70 twice.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2016, 07:47:13 PM
Decent information on NC interstate openings can be found at the individual route links at the bottom of the NCRoads.com Annex site - http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/index.html

US 64 was moved to its Lenoir-Taylorsville routing in the 1987-88 timeframe...

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 08:02:54 PM
Is there a good site to see the history of interstate openings in NC?  With my soo to be move from California to Morganton, I have done the usual study of USGS topo maps and Historic Arials.  A few things that stand out to me as cool:  I-40 from NC 18 in Morganton to west of Hickory is shown as under construction on both thew 1958 and 1964 USGS maps, this section is very substandard but it is being upgraded now.  The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool.  Having US 64 and 70 concurrent from Morganton to Hickory into the 1970's with the current arrangement having US 64 go north to Lenoir, going out of grid and crossing US 70 twice.

I try writing the history of highways in North Carolina on Wikipedia.  But honestly I get my sources from NCRoads.com Annex (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/index.html) and then back them up with actual historic maps, and records pulled from both NCDOT and AASHTO (because Wikipedia rules say that NCRoads.com is not a valid source of ref).  For reference though, the first piece of interstate opened in North Carolina was I-40 in Winston-Salem in early 1958, known as the East-West Expressway (today Business I-40; source NCDOT Interstate Fact Sheet).  Looking on the I-40 NC page on Wikipedia, it needs more work.  X-(

The 1957 county maps I have show I-40 under construction, from near the McDowell County line to Catawba County line.  They appear completed on the state map in 1960; here are the state maps of interest:  1951 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1951.pdf), 1960 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1960.pdf), 1970 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1970.pdf), 1979-80 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1980.pdf) and 1990-91 State Map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTStateTravelMapHistoric/STM1990.pdf).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 24, 2016, 08:44:08 PM
The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool. 

Some of the stubs NC built to connect to interstate endings were assigned route numbers although I don't know if they were actually posted (all 3 of these are 1968 county maps):

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_64a.jpg)

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_70a.jpg)

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_23a.jpg)



Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 09:16:32 PM
The stub west of Hickory and it's temporary connector road to US 70 is cool. 

Some of the stubs NC built to connect to interstate endings were assigned route numbers although I don't know if they were actually posted (all 3 of these are 1968 county maps):

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1968_64a.jpg)

Mike

I drive this stretch of I-40 all the time, I like how over-built the Hildebran interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7092561,-81.4187026,2527m/data=!3m1!1e3) is.  Only interchange besides I-40/US 321 that has lights and the design of the before and after is striking; west is the tight 1950-1960s design and east is late 1970-1980s wide design.  Even the geography (see link) you can tell how it was setup.

The Efland interchange use to have US 70 along it, but later changed, today it just have signs "TO" US 70 and "TO" I-85.  The Candler interchange, you cannot tell it existed like that at all anymore; I was actually surprised when I first saw the stubs like that, but made sense consider how the freeway there was laid out.  Another amusing one is former exit 153 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122872,-80.8427629,891m/data=!3m1!1e3) (closed since 2012), east of Statesville.  Check this streetview from October, 2015 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8122076,-80.8452564,3a,75y,126.44h,85.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sizr-f7nq3AUCvCMIfVXbWA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), the signage is still there but the ramp is gone.  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 24, 2016, 09:53:27 PM
I remember having to go through Newton and  Conover to  get from one segment of I-40 to the next; my father's family lived in Knoxville, and we lived in Greensboro so we drove what is now US 70 through the area until 1977.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on March 24, 2016, 10:17:09 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on March 24, 2016, 10:23:44 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I think this is only for the upcoming Easter weekend and a few days after that. I really doubt they're going to ticket people for going 1 MPH over; there aren't enough officers on the payroll to do that, and the tickets would be dismissed in court when the judges see lines circling the building 10 times over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 24, 2016, 11:20:06 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I think this is only for the upcoming Easter weekend and a few days after that. I really doubt they're going to ticket people for going 1 MPH over; there aren't enough officers on the payroll to do that, and the tickets would be dismissed in court when the judges see lines circling the building 10 times over.

Agreed.  It's a holiday weekend and the Highway Patrol will already have more troopers for it.  This will last the week or so and then back to normal. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 25, 2016, 11:28:53 AM
So are they unveiling the number too, or just the sign? :biggrin:
The signs will simply say "Future Interstate Corridor." I don't think there will be a shield, blank or otherwise, but I'll be interested to see. No word on what number will be requested.
Any number between 42 and 62 would still do, though I'd expect it to be in the 40s, mainly because it would start at or near I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 25, 2016, 09:03:32 PM
Supposedly North Carolina is to begin zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement (http://myfox8.com/2016/03/23/speeding-enforcement-crackdown-in-nc-to-target-anyone-going-above-posted-limit/). "Obey the sign or pay the fine."

I have my doubts as to whether that'll actually happen. But since I saw the article, I figured I'd pass it on.

I could repost by southeast roads post.  It's not the case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 30, 2016, 01:04:45 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 30, 2016, 04:01:33 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 30, 2016, 08:31:31 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on March 30, 2016, 10:56:00 PM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

Photo op to distract from the recent H.B. 2 controversy?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 31, 2016, 07:52:37 AM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/ (http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/)


The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

Photo op to distract from the recent H.B. 2 controversy?


Nah this was planned before all of that broke loose.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 31, 2016, 08:34:37 AM
Photo op in general.  Gives the politicians the ability to "show" that they're actually doing "something" when they're really not...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on March 31, 2016, 10:30:09 AM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.
At this point, we still don't know. I could see this become an eastern I-44, or barring that, I-42, I-46 or I-48. None of the last three numbers are currently in use anywhere, so I think they'd be a good fit there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 10:48:27 AM
"Future Interstate" signs unveiled on the US 70 not-yet-open Goldsboro Bypass:
http://wnct.com/2016/03/30/sign-for-future-u-s-70-interstate-to-be-unveiled-in-goldsboro/

The signs say "Future Interstate" at the top and have a large blank green space where a shield can be placed after a number for the future interstate becomes known.
Don't know, especially given the many years it will take until the project to upgrade US 70 is completed, why the hurry to unveil a sign with a blank space now. Why not wait until May when AASHTO, assuming it get's an application from NCDOT, will decide which number NCDOT can use.

A few things
 1) this sign is located on the under construction section of the 70 bypass. So - as long as it's not signed anywhere else - a blank sign just is publicity.  This section of 70 will be opened after Aashto in May and when it opens they can place the shield - open sections of 70 can wait till the designation is assigned

2) silly as it is but this sign appears to have the same dimensions as the Future 495 signs on 64 between 540 and Rocky Mount.  They want a 2di but .... When you are looking for clues that's about all you get

3) the sign unveiling was scheduled and pushed by the Super70 commission before anything with HB2. It is strictly for publicity and awareness of the route - check the box stuff. Heck gov. Easley came to a rather uneventful groundbreaking for an expansion of a shingle mfg plant. Just a check the box thing politicos do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 12:09:25 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 12:22:51 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2016, 12:33:29 PM
He may have meant no conflict with there being another I-50 somewhere else...?

North Carolina already has I-74/US 74 and I-73/NC 73 without a problem.

There is no rule about state route conflict anyway.  South Carolina has several (20, 126, 185, 385) and only renumbered SC 77 and SC 85 because they crossed into North Carolina and NC renumbered all its original conflicts.  SC 26 and SC 95 were renumbered before the interstate era.

Mike
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 12:44:23 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Did you mail them - if go great job!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 01:33:15 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. ASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Did you mail them - if go great job!

Yes. Thanks for getting that info.

Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 02:06:51 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 02:17:18 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 02:32:38 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
NC 50 is concurrent with US 70 in Raleigh but not anywhere along the route of the new interstate (NC 50 roughly parallels I-40, not the proposed I-50). The name NC 50 is well known locally and there would probably be strong local opposition to changing it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.

If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 04:08:32 PM
Also, what does this do for the Norfolk-Raleigh interstate number? :poke: :spin:
If I-50 is accepted by AASHTO, then to fit the grid the US 64/17 route would have to have an even number between 52 and 62. I don't know whether NCDOT is asking for a number for that route on this AASHTO cycle as well.

I wonder if they will even build it in the first place. But, I wouldn't put anything past NCDOT when it comes to new interstates.

If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:

Lol.  Doesn't US 60 end somewhere near Norfolk though?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 04:37:12 PM
If they are asking for I-50 for US 70, then I could see NCDOT ask for I-60 along US 64/US 17, because why not.  :bigass:
Lol.  Doesn't US 60 end somewhere near Norfolk though?

US 60 goes through Norfolk to end in Virginia Beach, so yes.  But think how much this would troll the highway fanatics; something else to complain about besides I-238.  North Carolina having both mystical unicorn interstates 50 and 60, neither of which go cross-country.  Fun times!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on March 31, 2016, 04:46:14 PM
US 60 goes through Norfolk to end in Virginia Beach, so yes.  But think how much this would troll the highway fanatics; something else to complain about besides I-238.  North Carolina having both mystical unicorn interstates 50 and 60, neither of which go cross-country.  Fun times!

Good point. I-60 it is then
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 04:53:19 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

The state could renumber NC 50 to something else, it's not hard for them and they have done this in the past... best example NC 26 --> NC 226.  However, since existing NC 73 and I-73 exist and even cross each other, the current NCDOT may not care.
NC 50 is concurrent with US 70 in Raleigh but not anywhere along the route of the new interstate (NC 50 roughly parallels I-40, not the proposed I-50). The name NC 50 is well known locally and there would probably be strong local opposition to changing it.

Note that NC 50 is supposed to have an interchange with the future NC 540 just west of the current I-40/US 70 (and probably future NC 540) interchange.  I guess that is a non-factor if this comes to fruition.

Official word from the Highway 70 Corridor Commission on I-50 from its March 17 meeting (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/Highway%2070%20March%2017.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 05:45:04 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rover_0 on March 31, 2016, 05:48:56 PM
What will the Interstate designation be? Keep us posted.

It's I-50. Here is an excerpt from an email from Mr. Durwood Stephenson, the director of the Super 70 Corridor Commission:

"The Corridor Commission has recommended I-50 for several reasons; i.e. no conflicts with numbering, must be even number between 46 and 70. AASHTO will make final decision hopefully at their annual meeting in May, 2016."

Does NC 50 not count as a conflict with numbering?  Especially since it is concurrent with US 70 and partly US 401 through Raleigh into Garner

I'm most partial to I-46 or I-48, as those numbers would be unique and NC-46 and NC-48 are fairly short routes that could be renumbered relatively easily (though there is that issue with VA-46, as it's a continuation of NC-46).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2016, 06:16:59 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 31, 2016, 07:10:46 PM
Well any way, regardless of number, here is a picture of the blank Future Interstate sign from WITN-7 (our local NBC affilliate's) website.

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/future+interstate.jpg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 31, 2016, 07:53:12 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 31, 2016, 08:04:48 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 31, 2016, 09:06:21 PM
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.

Not sure about 2di to 3di.  But AASHTO did reject 195 and 185.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 01, 2016, 01:46:27 PM
It's not what AASHTO decides.
So it's what the 70 corridor folks suggested. Not what NCDOT may actually request.  Thanks for catching that. Hey only a few weeks til it is known
That's a good point, although NCDOT is represented on the Corridor Commission and apparently raised no objection. And of course AASHTO can decide on a different number.

The NCDOT Board meets next week, and numbering requests are due to AASHTO later in April.

Is there much of a history on AASHTO deciding different numbers?  I have a hard time wondering the criteria for them to deny a request and go in a different direction.  (as in make the corridor I-340 instead of a 2di in this scenario)

Not really, most of the time they either say yes or no to a request with explanation and may be asked to resubmit again.  So it will likely be whatever North Carolina goes with and if they don't like, the vote and say try again in the Fall.

Given that it's a potential Interstate we're talking about, it's not what AASHTO decides.  It's what FHWA decides.  AASHTO is just an advisory body here...FHWA has final approval on Interstate route numbers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 01, 2016, 02:04:31 PM
Per NcDoT a proposed designation number for submission has yet to be decided.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/715952466630721536
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 01, 2016, 03:17:09 PM
Per NcDoT a proposed designation number for submission has yet to be decided.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/715952466630721536
Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 01, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
I think the corridor is too short for a 2 digit interstate with a 0 at the end. But then again, so is Interstate 30.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on April 02, 2016, 10:58:18 PM

Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).

Why is the tax deadline not Friday the 15th?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 03, 2016, 12:06:28 AM

Renumbering requests for the May AASHTO meeting must be submitted by Monday, April 18 (same deadline as income taxes).

Why is the tax deadline not Friday the 15th?

Pulled this from the IRS website:
Quote
Why is Tax Day April 18?
The regular tax return filing deadline is April 15. However, due to the Washington D.C. Emancipation Day holiday being observed on April 15 instead of April 16, 2016, Tax Day is on the following Monday.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 15, 2016, 10:37:41 PM
Wanted to give some kudos to the NC State road people, but also a query:  GSV has updated their sat immagry for Morganton, where I am about to move, and it shows the reconstruction as complete at the I-40 exits for US64, Enola Road, and NC 16 interchanges.  Now, as I posted earlier, these were substandard, with the NC16 into being especially bad.  The kudos is in that that traffic signals at the ramps are all decorative curved mast arms in black.  The one big thing that always stood out to me as "trashy" in NC was the leaning telephone pole supports for the traffic signals.  Now query 1: Seeing similar rebuilds in Asheville on 40 with the same mast arm signals, is this anew statewide standard?  Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on April 15, 2016, 11:34:07 PM
Wanted to give some kudos to the NC State road people, but also a query:  GSV has updated their sat immagry for Morganton, where I am about to move, and it shows the reconstruction as complete at the I-40 exits for US64, Enola Road, and NC 16 interchanges.  Now, as I posted earlier, these were substandard, with the NC16 into being especially bad.  The kudos is in that that traffic signals at the ramps are all decorative curved mast arms in black.  The one big thing that always stood out to me as "trashy" in NC was the leaning telephone pole supports for the traffic signals.  Now query 1: Seeing similar rebuilds in Asheville on 40 with the same mast arm signals, is this anew statewide standard?  Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?

For question 2 I would assume it's due to the new(ish) high school there, can't remember if it's Draughn or Patton.  US 64 south of I-40 really has nothing of interest, and I can't remember much traffic going towards Rutherfordton from when I lived that way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 16, 2016, 10:25:42 AM
Query 2:  There is a big project to widen Old Enola Road/old NC 18 's approach to Morganton to 4 lanes divided, is this a state project, and why was that approach chosen and not the US 64 approach to town?

Nearly all roads in the state are owned/maintained by NCDOT, so likely yes; they are not the #2 largest highway system in the U.S. for nothing.  As for US 64, that's not as traveled as the NC 18 route from Gaston County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 18, 2016, 11:45:37 AM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on April 18, 2016, 12:41:19 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 18, 2016, 06:25:03 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 18, 2016, 07:23:28 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.

The Monroe Bypass will be "US 74 Bypass," it is in several NCDOT documents on its website.  There is also going to be a NC 74, which will exist for a few years in Winston-Salem as the bypass there is being built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 20, 2016, 03:25:23 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 21, 2016, 11:05:49 AM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on April 21, 2016, 11:34:53 AM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 21, 2016, 03:38:24 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:

Will be, for just a few years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 21, 2016, 03:58:28 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
So basically NC 74 is just a fancy unbuilt unsigned highway?   :spin:

Will be, for just a few years.
NCDOT has started construction on a 4 mile segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway (Future I-74) extending from US 421 (aka Business I-40) to US 158. This segment should be completed in 2019. It will be at least five years, maybe longer, before this segment will be connected to the completed portion of I-74. So for at least five years IMO this segment would be signed as NC 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 22, 2016, 12:43:42 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 22, 2016, 01:25:37 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
No more than over I-99 in PA! :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 22, 2016, 04:02:43 PM
An Interstate 74, a US 74, and a NC 74 all co-existing in North Carolina? This really is the Twilight Zone!
The concurrence of I-74 and US 74 is an unfortunate result of Congressional action, not something that North Carolina sought specifically. NC 74 is simply a placeholder for future sections of I-74, not a separate highway.
What makes it worse is that it will not connect to Cincinnati, due to the lack of interest from the states in between. In a perfect world, I-73 would be I-79, and US 74 would be a I-3x route from Asheville to Wilmington, but we'll never know that now.

Question: at night, do you lose sleep over this?
No more than over I-99 in PA! :)

Well judging from your posts - you must never get any sleep then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 22, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
Interstate 74 in North Carolina is here to stay, just like Interstate 99 in Pennsylvania and New York. Maybe we should stop whining about it and just accept those facts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 28, 2016, 10:26:26 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/725669738127433728

Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 28, 2016, 10:53:59 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/725669738127433728

Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.

Pretty sure it is here:
https://goo.gl/maps/hdZ4ZoBu4pP2

1965 Aerials support this...  current aerials show that a flock of trees has sprung up in front of the building that is visible up the hill in the NCDOT picture...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 28, 2016, 11:22:05 AM
Any guesses to where this photo was taken: US 64 East of Raleigh.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/725669738127433728

Personally I think somewhere near the current WakeMed campus.

Pretty sure it is here:
https://goo.gl/maps/hdZ4ZoBu4pP2

1965 Aerials support this...  current aerials show that a flock of trees has sprung up in front of the building that is visible up the hill in the NCDOT picture...


So yes just West of Wake Med.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 29, 2016, 05:13:44 PM
NCDOT has completed the formal designation of its Preferred Alternative for the NC 540 beltway south and southeast of Raleigh. No surprise on the route, which was announced earlier this year. Next up is work on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, with construction by the NC Turnpike Authority expected sometime during the 2017-18 fiscal year. Here's the announcement:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12458
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 30, 2016, 04:07:17 PM
How long will it be before we can drive around the entire 67-mile circle?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 30, 2016, 04:20:04 PM
How long will it be before we can drive around the entire 67-mile circle?
According to the NCDOT site, the work will be done in 3 phases:
1. N.C. 55 Bypass to U.S. 401
2. U.S. 401 to I-40, and
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)
Construction could start in FY 2017, but with the Final EIS still due, I think 2018 is more likely. Assuming they don't start the next phase until the prior one is complete and it takes 2-3 years to complete each section, you're probably looking at 2025 as the earliest possible completion date for the entire loop, which, by the way is 70 miles around, not 67.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 01, 2016, 01:50:05 PM
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)

When everything is completed, that interchange with I-40, US 70/Future Interstate and NC 540 is going to be crazy looking.  I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku
I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.

They do (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf). (Warning:  119mb file)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 01, 2016, 06:33:52 PM
3. I-40 to U.S. 64/264 Bypass (I-495)

When everything is completed, that interchange with I-40, US 70/Future Interstate and NC 540 is going to be crazy looking.  I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.
Quote from: WashuOtaku
I wish they already had designs how that interchange will look.

They do (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/maps/C540_6A_PHM.pdf). (Warning:  119mb file)

Yes, the existing trumpet will stay then you have a cloverleaf and turbine interchange right on top of it plus widening of 40 to this point to six lanes.  It's gonna be fun to watch in 10 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 01, 2016, 11:15:26 PM
I believe the STIP has the widening of I-40 for construction starting in 2018. So that may precede the NC 540 construction. And it can't come too soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 04, 2016, 08:59:33 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 04, 2016, 09:23:50 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426

Do you have a link to the article, by chance? I tried looking for it, but couldn't find anything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 04, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
You may not have found anything because the referenced projects are not in the Charlotte MPO area.  Gaston, Lincoln, and Cleveland Counties are their own MPO (http://gclmpo.org).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 04, 2016, 10:55:20 AM
Now that I am living in NC,  I caught an article about the STIP update for Charlotte's MPO.  Widening 85 to 8 lanes down to the 29/74 exit by Kings Mountain and 6 lanes thereafter to the border.  But the big lock surprise: Upgrading Us 74 to interstate standards to Asheville to be redesignated I-426

The designation makes sense, as it would be a connector interstate between I-26 and I-85.  However, we do need a source, if possible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 04, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
All I can find is this discussion, which provides a link to the updated STIP which does include converting US 74 to an interstate west of Shellby but does not specify a number.

Later in this discussion I-426 is speculated as a number...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2569030-new-transportation-projects-submitted-charlotte-region.html

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2016, 04:18:55 PM
How difficult would it be to connect the two freeway segments of US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85? Approximately how much condemning of homes and businesses would be necessary?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2016, 06:38:48 PM
All I can find is this discussion, which provides a link to the updated STIP which does include converting US 74 to an interstate west of Shellby but does not specify a number.

Later in this discussion I-426 is speculated as a number...

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2569030-new-transportation-projects-submitted-charlotte-region.html
The new STIP is in a very early phase, so it's too early to put a lot of stock in this. However, it's a reasonable idea. Since the road is west to east, the I-x26 number is preferable to I-x85, I think.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on May 04, 2016, 08:01:46 PM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 05, 2016, 09:26:59 AM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.

At the rate they're going, they will announce a new interstate every year  :bigass:. A roadgeek's dream come true.

Although, I would like to see them finish some of these planned interstates before moving on to new ones.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 05, 2016, 10:54:42 AM
I'm sure FritzOwl goes out there a lot! :rofl:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 05, 2016, 11:06:20 AM
How difficult would it be to connect the two freeway segments of US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85? Approximately how much condemning of homes and businesses would be necessary?

Construction already started a couple years ago on the northern Shelby bypass, to be called US 74 Bypass.  The routing went through mostly farmland, so not much condemning was done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2016, 11:20:06 AM
Man, NC loves to build(or least say they're going to build)interstates. It should definitely be I-x26 because like someone said the only I-x85 option left that makes sense is I-685 which I'm am just SURE NC has planned eventually for US Route 1 between Raleigh and Henderson.

It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 12:59:12 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

EDIT: I found a direct link on NCDOT's website without Google interfering in the previous link.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 01:23:27 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ)

Great find looking forward to digging into it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 04:22:44 PM
Construction on the Monroe Bypass has begun, with a completion date targeted for 2018:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/community/south-charlotte/article31539566.html

Quote
When complete, the 20-mile road, running roughly parallel to N.C. 74 from west of Marshville to the Interstate 485 interchange in Matthews, will allow motorists to bypass the stop-and-go traffic along U.S. 74.
Usually I don't give a shit about getting the shield type wrong, but when you have I-74 and US 74 as different routes, it's more important.

The Monroe Expressway will not be part of I-74; Charlotte and Monroe are well to the west of Rockingham, where I-74 and US 74 become concurrent. As a matter of fact, as far as I can tell no route number has been assigned to the Expressway. The project is listed with "-" as the route number in the NCDOT Construction Progress database.

The Monroe Bypass will be "US 74 Bypass," it is in several NCDOT documents on its website.  There is also going to be a NC 74, which will exist for a few years in Winston-Salem as the bypass there is being built.

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 06, 2016, 04:44:44 PM
It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.

NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 06, 2016, 04:56:00 PM
NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.

Could ask Texas that same question.... I-2, I-14, I-69, I-69E, I-69W and I-69C.  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 06, 2016, 06:08:07 PM
I found the latest feasibility study (dated July 2015) for upgrading US-117 to Interstate standards and extending I-795 south to I-40 west of Faison in Sampson County. The Wayne County Board of Commissioners favor Alternative 4A for the new terrain route from US-117 south of US-13 near the Mar-Mac area of Goldsboro to Ash Street where the freeway currently ends. The link-up with I-40 is the most interesting part. The original plan is to upgrade the existing I-40 interchange (Exit 355), but Sampson County opposes that alternative because they have a planned industrial site near that exit and they're worried that an upgraded interchange would interfere with that site. Sampson Co. wants I-795 to split off from the US-117 Connector between Faison and I-40 and follow a short, new terrain route and link up with I-40 at a new interchange south of Exit 355. Duplin County and the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization opposes the new terrain I-795 linkup with I-40 because of the farmland that would be destroyed and wants the US-117 Connector and Exit 355 upgraded. I wonder who's gonna win that one...

(PDF is 65 pages and 7.70MB)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1304A_Report_2015.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjohc2H8cXMAhVDGj4KHXW4BM0QFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNH-XAyXroPHSFbYAe84BzSiAilILQ)

Great find looking forward to digging into it

Thanks! It's an interesting read.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 06, 2016, 06:13:27 PM
It's not that they love building interstates. It is the freeways they are buildings are typically to Interstate standards.  This allows them to ask for an Interstate designation.

NC has three metropolitan areas that are doing OK economically and a large number of smaller cities that aren't doing so well because they depended historically on tobacco or on furniture manufacturing. To help with economic redevelopment all these smaller cities want to be on freeways, preferably interstates. IMO that's what's driving NC's current craze for new interstate designations.

I'd agree with that and where they can they are trying to build to standards so the designations can come with it. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on May 07, 2016, 12:10:51 AM

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.

That actually surprised me considering how they put an interstate shield on everything else.

Maybe in a couple of years some politician or very influential people in Monroe or the other towns along that stretch will request an interstate number and then NCDOT will ask for one from the feds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2016, 12:30:09 AM

Before you made this reply I posted a query on the NCDOT website asking what route number would be assigned to the Monroe Expressway, and in particular whether there was any plan for it to become an interstate highway. They finally answered today, confirming that the Expressway will be US 74 Bypass, and they say there is "no plan" for an interstate designation. This will disappoint Fictional Highway participants, who are hoping for an interstate all the way across NC on US 74.

That actually surprised me considering how they put an interstate shield on everything else.

Maybe in a couple of years some politician or very influential people in Monroe or the other towns along that stretch will request an interstate number and then NCDOT will ask for one from the feds.

Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2016, 07:33:13 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey
Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...

Even new toll roads can be added to the Interstate system these days, as long as they're built to Interstate standard, have logical termini for an Interstate route, and are added as non-chargeable Interstate (meaning the local jurisdiction does not get any additional Federal funding for having the route).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2016, 09:25:52 AM
Quote from: Mapmikey
Some of the money to build the Monroe Expressway supposedly comes via a federal loan.  I don't know if that means an interstate shield can therefore not be put on it in the same way as if the federal government paid for any part of the project more directly...

Even new toll roads can be added to the Interstate system these days, as long as they're built to Interstate standard, have logical termini for an Interstate route, and are added as non-chargeable Interstate (meaning the local jurisdiction does not get any additional Federal funding for having the route).


Right.  So does in the eyes of this rule, does federal loan = federal funding?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2016, 12:35:13 PM
No.  In this case, "Federal loan" means that the relevant jurisdiction needs to reimburse FHWA back.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2016, 03:05:56 PM
While the Monroe Expressway is getting built, its counterpart to the west, the Garden Parkway, will not be:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article76552132.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2016, 09:11:18 AM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 14, 2016, 12:43:49 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)

Thanks for finding this document. At first glance, the North Alternative seems to be the least disruptive of the three possibilities, but it might have environmental problems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2016, 03:07:47 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet. All I found was this feasibility study (dated November 2015) for upgrading US-70 from the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass to Edwards Road just across the Johnston County line near Princeton. There's 3 alternatives, one is upgrading the existing highway, one is north of existing US-70 and the other is south of existing US-70.

(PDF is 71 pages, 3.21MB)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1204A_Report_2015.pdf)

Thanks for finding this document. At first glance, the North Alternative seems to be the least disruptive of the three possibilities, but it might have environmental problems.

Agreed. I don't think there's much chance of the North Alternative being built because of that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 14, 2016, 03:15:13 PM
Since the I-36(?)/US-70 Goldsboro Bypass is scheduled to open next month, I looked to see if there were any plans for the remainder of US-70 in Wayne County that hasn't been upgraded yet.

I believe it will be signed US 70 Bypass when it opens, the document to ASHTOO is to assign the Interstate Number and they will likely need FHWA approval too before any on-the-ground signage appears.  If they get I-36, I expect FHWA sign-off this Summer and NCDOT submitting in the Fall the first sections of I-36, with signs up by Christmas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2016, 07:11:16 AM
Mornin' folks! I wasn't sure if this should go in this thread or the "I-36" thread, so I'll post it in both. The final section of the US-70 (possible I-36) Goldsboro Bypass from Wayne Memorial Drive to US-70 just west of La Grange is scheduled to open next Friday, May 27. A ribbon cutting ceremony will be held that morning at 11:00 AM. You may now return to your regulary scheduled programming. 

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/05/20/eastern-portion-of-new-bypass-in-wayne-to-open-friday/ (http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/05/20/eastern-portion-of-new-bypass-in-wayne-to-open-friday/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 21, 2016, 07:54:52 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 21, 2016, 08:23:36 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

No, once this section opens, the entire length of the Goldsboro Bypass will be open. It'll be about 20 miles long from end to end. It's currently open from US-70 just west of NC-581 in the Rosewood area of Goldsboro to Wayne Memorial Drive. The part that will open next week is the eastern tie-in to the existing US-70 near La Grange in Lenoir County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 21, 2016, 08:23:55 AM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 21, 2016, 08:39:52 AM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.

December of 2011 to be exact:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 21, 2016, 10:30:46 AM
RIP NC 44, December 2011-May 2016.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 21, 2016, 11:01:54 AM
Just in time for the Memorial Day rush to the beach? Or is there a central segment of the highway that won't be open yet?

LGL33L

No, once this section opens, the entire length of the Goldsboro Bypass will be open. It'll be about 20 miles long from end to end. It's currently open from US-70 just west of NC-581 in the Rosewood area of Goldsboro to Wayne Memorial Drive. The part that will open next week is the eastern tie-in to the existing US-70 near La Grange in Lenoir County.

The new section connects at its eastern end with the existing La Grange Bypass, making a freeway segment of Future I-36 (or I-whatever) about 24 miles long. By my count there will be about 63 miles of freeway complete on Future I-36 including the Clayton Bypass and the segments at Smithfield and New Bern.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2016, 07:22:17 PM
The "central segment" was the first segment to open.

December of 2011 to be exact:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157628457432307

Speaking of the central segment, I never understood why they cut Tommys Road in half between US-117 and NC-111 when that segment was built. Shouldn't it have been kept open for local traffic?  :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on May 27, 2016, 12:47:10 PM
Could that instance of I-495 be the shortest lived Interstate number? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2016, 04:13:34 PM
Hopefully whenever Google Maps updates to show the newly opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass, they'll FINALLY update the I-795 interchange. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound I-42 is still missing from Google Maps despite the fact that it's been open since last October. WNCN tweeted that the people at the ceremony were notifying Google that the road is now open.

PS: Yeah, I know I-42 isn't signed yet, but it's only a matter of time, so I'm calling the bypass I-42. Deal with it.  :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 28, 2016, 05:30:04 AM
Hopefully whenever Google Maps updates to show the newly opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass, they'll FINALLY update the I-795 interchange. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound I-42 is still missing from Google Maps despite the fact that it's been open since last October. WNCN tweeted that the people at the ceremony were notifying Google that the road is now open.

PS: Yeah, I know I-42 isn't signed yet, but it's only a matter of time, so I'm calling the bypass I-42. Deal with it.  :bigass:
Agreed.  Dealt with! :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 28, 2016, 02:31:55 PM
Interstate 42 and Interstate 87 in North Carolina? Now I've seen everything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 28, 2016, 05:00:24 PM
I wonder if NCDOT will get rid of the "US-70 Bypass" designation for the Goldsboro Bypass once NCDOT applies for and gets permission to put up I-42 signs and just have the bypass solely as I-42. Similar to NCDOT taking US-117 off of I-795. There were already two different 70's in Goldsboro (US-70 and Business US-70) and now a third. Personally, I'd rather they do that, not just in Goldsboro, but for all the future bypasses. Leave US-70 for local traffic where possible, just like US-117.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 28, 2016, 05:44:15 PM
Does anyone know how the US 70 signage in Goldsboro is now?

The original bypass was signed as 70 BYPASS.

Is the new bypass now 70 BYPASS and the old bypass 70 with no banner?

Did 70 Business move from the original business route to the original bypass?

Something else?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 28, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Does anyone know how the US 70 signage in Goldsboro is now?

The original bypass was signed as 70 BYPASS.

Is the new bypass now 70 BYPASS and the old bypass 70 with no banner?

Did 70 Business move from the original business route to the original bypass?

Something else?


Bypass was taken away from US 70 awhile ago.  Only US 117 had a bypass tag.

I was going to drive there this weekend, but nash came a week early, to confirm. However my understanding is that old bypass is US 70 , new bypass - Bypass US 70 and Business 70 remains as is
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 29, 2016, 02:45:37 AM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 06:19:38 AM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 29, 2016, 02:05:38 PM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D

Much more important now is to get back to work on plans for the Kinston Bypass. NCDOT suspended that project when it didn't make the 2016-2025 STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 29, 2016, 02:51:24 PM
 My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 03:07:18 PM
Question:  does anyone out there know if there are any pending NCDOT plans to add shoulders to the Dover-New Bern freeway section(plus any other necessary modifications) in order to bring that segment up to Interstate standards?  It seems to me with the effort that the Super 70 corridor commission put into the process that eventually produced I-42, they would likely be pestering NCDOT on a regular basis to advance such a project to sooner rather than later.

There's none that I know of. NCDOT seems to be focusing on the tougher spots with traffic congestion like they did with Goldsboro, which had a HUGE bottleneck at the US-70/Grantham Street interchange. That interchange is the "confusing loop" the news articles were referring to. I used to go through there everyday and it was a parking lot at rush hour. I'm guessing NCDOT is saving the easiest for last like the Dover-New Bern section. Since the Dover-New Bern freeway is already 70mph with no traffic lights, NCDOT would have little incentive to upgrade it versus bypassing congested areas like Havelock and Kinston, so my guess is that unless there's a sudden change in NCDOT's priorities, the freeway section will be the last to get upgraded. As far as the Super 70 Corridor Commission goes, they'll likely be more interested in getting I-42 signed in Goldsboro and Clayton ASAP (since they already meet Interstate standards) than they would be upgrading a 70mph freeway. You saw how quickly an I-42 shield was made and displayed at the ribbon-cutting ceremony with little time passed since the announcement of AASHTO's approval. :-D

Much more important now is to get back to work on plans for the Kinston Bypass. NCDOT suspended that project when it didn't make the 2016-2025 STIP.

The Super 70 Corridor Commission will likely be making noise to have the Kinston Bypass squeezed into NCDOT's "To-Do" list now that I-42 will soon be up and running. At least NCDOT had the good sense to eliminate the northern alternatives for the Kinston Bypass. Kinston city leaders wanted the northern alternative by upgrading the C.F. Harvey Parkway, which runs right beside the Global TransPark, and reconnecting with US-70 on the east side of the city. They wanted an interstate directly serving the Global TransPark. Problem is, nobody going to the beach would use the northern alternative since it would take traffic out of their way. Beach-bound traffic would stick to the existing US-70 since it would be shorter. A short, southern shallow bypass using as much of the existing US-70 (upgraded to Interstate standards) as feasibly possible would probably be the best option there, IMO.  :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2016, 03:30:03 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 29, 2016, 04:01:52 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

Here is the inactive web site for the Kinston Bypass project: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinstonbypass/

The project started in May 2009, and the most recent public hearing was in August 2014. The hope then was that construction could begin in 2023. The suspension means a delay of at least 3 years, more likely 5 years.
Title: [NC] Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
Post by: Thing 342 on May 30, 2016, 09:44:01 PM
And now for something completely different:
Quote from: WAVY-TV
Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
RODANTHE, N.C. (WAVY) – North Carolina received approval from the federal government Tuesday to move forward with plans to build the new Rodanthe Bridge.

The Federal Highway Administration’s approval of a revised version of the environmental assessment for the Rodanthe Bridge is a key step toward constructing a new, permanent bridge for N.C. 12 in northern Rodanthe, a vital link for the region.

The new bridge will be a long-term solution to keep N.C. 12 open through an area that has dealt with severe storm damage in the past.

The bridge will be at a new location and will include a 2.4 mile long stretch of bridge known as a “jug handle,”  which will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

This design wasn’t always the preferred option.

Prior to public meetings in January of 2014, the North Carolina Department of Transportation had proposed building a bridge over top of N.C. 12 through that same stretch.

After hearing public input, NCDOT changed its preferred option for a long-term solution to the alternative: a bridge at a new location.

NCDOT says this design will be better than a bridge along the existing route of N.C. 12 because it minimizes the impact on the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, the ocean shoreline and the community of Rodanthe, while providing safe and reliable access for area residents and Hatteras Island visitors, the agency said.

NCDOT will begin asking the public for comments and opinions on the revised plan. A set of local public meetings will be held this summer to publicize the alternative.

The agency is partnering with the Federal Highway Administration to consider public comments and identify the final selected alternative.

The project is estimated to cost between $179.3 million and $198.3 million. It is part of a bigger plan to replace the Bonner Bridge over the Oregon Inlet, which the governor broke ground on March of this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2016, 10:23:10 AM
The recently opened section of the Goldsboro Bypass from Wayne Memorial Drive to US-70 near La Grange is now showing up on Google Maps, but Google labeled it as NC-44. The ramp from southbound I-795 to westbound US-70 Bypass is still missing from the map.  :pan:
Title: Re: [NC] Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 31, 2016, 02:52:39 PM
And now for something completely different:
Quote from: WAVY-TV
Plans for new Rodanthe Bridge get green light to move forward
RODANTHE, N.C. (WAVY) – North Carolina received approval from the federal government Tuesday to move forward with plans to build the new Rodanthe Bridge.

The new bridge will be a long-term solution to keep N.C. 12 open through an area that has dealt with severe storm damage in the past.

The bridge will be at a new location and will include a 2.4 mile long stretch of bridge known as a “jug handle,”  which will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

For those of us who've been going to the Outer Banks for years (since the 1970s in my case) this is a really big deal. It's the first official recognition that the decades-long effort to keep NC 12 on the barrier islands is doomed to failure long term, and radical solutions will be needed to keep the OBX communities connected.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 02, 2016, 02:19:15 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 02, 2016, 02:45:09 PM
How accurate are the claims that this project is unneeded?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 02, 2016, 02:49:58 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/

Interesting part in the article.

Quote
Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, tried to tack an amendment onto the bill that would preclude any future toll roads in North Carolina, but House Speaker Tim Moore ruled it out of order.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 02, 2016, 06:02:31 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster
How accurate are the claims that this project is unneeded?

[citation needed]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 02, 2016, 07:21:35 PM
Breaking news: the NC House has voted to cancel the contract for the I-77 toll lanes.
http://www.wral.com/house-tells-i-77-toll-road-contractor-to-hit-the-road/15747591/


Good. The company itself is trouble. Look at what happened to TX Toll Road 130. The contract was trouble from the beginning.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 08:38:35 AM
I forgot to mention this before, but utility relocation work on US-117 at the intersections of Oberry Road in Dudley and Country Club Road just north of Mount Olive is set to begin soon, if it hasn't begun already. It's being done in preparation for upgrading those intersections to interchanges in order to help bring US-117 to Interstate standards for the extension of I-795 from Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison. The Oberry Road intersection currently has the only traffic light on US-117 between the Mar-Mac area of southern Goldsboro and I-40. I believe NCDOT will also widen the shoulders on US-117 in the vicinity of those two interchanges as part of the projects. The actual construction is set to begin sometime next year.

This was the only article I could find that mentions the utility relocation. I'm not currently a subscriber to the News-Argus (there's a paywall), but in case some of you are, here ya go. The article is dated April 19. At least the first paragraph gives the gist of it for the poor folk like me.  :awesomeface:

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/04/19/us_117_utility_work_to_begin/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/04/19/us_117_utility_work_to_begin/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2016, 04:32:42 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.

Well considering Kinston is the only town left on 70 that really needs to be bypassed - kinda easy to say that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 05:37:02 PM
My in-laws live in New Bern and I live in the triangle so mostly I drive 70 on weekends, and find that the congestion has always been worse in Kinston so I wondered why the second Goldsboro bypass got priority over Kinston but I respect that if it is a rush hour bottleneck then Goldsboro did indeed deserve to come first. However Kinston definitely should come next after Havelock.

LGL33L

The US-70/Grantham Street interchange in Goldsboro was a big problem at rush hour, but there's also 8 traffic lights, most of them one right after another, between the US-70/Grantham Street interchange and the western end of the Goldsboro Bypass that also added to the headache. I agree that the Kinston Bypass needs to be built once the Havelock Bypass is done.

Well considering Kinston is the only town left on 70 that really needs to be bypassed - kinda easy to say that.

Welp, we certainly walked into that one!  :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2016, 07:23:47 PM
The lastest I-87 blog from the Raleigh RTA had some interesting points. I expect the Super 70 Corridor Commission will be putting the same pressure on NCDOT to have I-42 shields go up in Clayton and Goldsboro. I guess the RTA didn't get the memo that NCDOT already said they would seek to have interstate standard sections of both corridors added to the Interstate system. I think AASHTO's next meeting this fall will be worth looking forward to.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/interstate-87/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/freeways/interstate-87/)

Quote
The RTA business coalition will seek the timely installation of “Interstate 87”  signage from its southern terminus at I-40 (exit 301) in southeast Raleigh to at least I-540 along the US 64/264 (currently I-495) corridor east of Raleigh.

The RTA will also seek the timely installation of “Future I-87”  signage along the remaining portions of the existing “Future I-495”  corridor west of I-95 and the corridor segments along US 64 and US 17 east of I-95.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2016, 08:23:22 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on June 05, 2016, 11:04:00 PM
...an odd first digit can end at another Interstate...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 05, 2016, 11:25:14 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 06, 2016, 12:24:30 AM
The I-85 reconstruction in the northern part of the state is moving along. The northbound side is completely shut down and everything is in a cattle shoot setup on the southbound side from the VA/NC state line to just shy of the Vance/Warren County line. There is additional work at the US-1 interchange (Exit 218), but exited off before so I wasn't able to get a good look at what was going on there. Was it in the plans to reconfigure that left exit?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 06, 2016, 12:44:29 AM
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.

Speaking of 540, once that beltway is done, will they make the whole thing I-540? Not that it's needed or anything, just curious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 08:35:38 AM
An odd number can run between two interstates, however, I believe the FHWA would prefer an even number. In the case of I-540, NCDOT did ask for and got a waiver from the FHWA so as not to have to renumber it I-640 when the I-495 designation was approved and that route was now to run between two interstates.
Speaking of 540, once that beltway is done, will they make the whole thing I-540? Not that it's needed or anything, just curious.

No.  I-540 will continue as it exists as seen today, it will not be extended or renumbered.  The new sections of the beltway will be signed NC 540 because those too will be toll roads.  NC 540 will exist as long as the toll roads remain, which is 30 years after completion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2016, 08:52:46 AM
However, with recent changes in Federal law regarding toll roads and Interstates, there is now nothing stopping NCDOT from requesting that I-540 be extended along the TriEx.  This did not exist when the first segments of NC 540 opened south of I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 12:05:37 PM
However, with recent changes in Federal law regarding toll roads and Interstates, there is now nothing stopping NCDOT from requesting that I-540 be extended along the TriEx.  This did not exist when the first segments of NC 540 opened south of I-40.

Possibly, but I believe NCDOT will keep this setup because it breaks the difference clearly between toll and non-tolled section. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on June 06, 2016, 03:56:24 PM
The I-85 reconstruction in the northern part of the state is moving along. The northbound side is completely shut down and everything is in a cattle shoot setup on the southbound side from the VA/NC state line to just shy of the Vance/Warren County line. There is additional work at the US-1 interchange (Exit 218), but exited off before so I wasn't able to get a good look at what was going on there. Was it in the plans to reconfigure that left exit?

No, the project is a bridge/pavement rehab project, so the configuration remained the same.  This is TIP project I-0914BA; the section north (to the state line) is BB.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2016, 04:00:02 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 06, 2016, 04:30:49 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.

Apparently. I always thought that a 3-di that either connected to another interstate or reconnected with it's parent had to have an even 1st digit, which is why NCDOT asked FHWA for a waiver to keep I-540 as-is once I-495 was signed on the Knightdale Bypass and a 3-di that didn't connect to another interstate or reconnect with it's parent had to have an odd 1st digit. If I remember correctly, NCDOT submitted I-185 to AASHTO for US-52 from I-85 in Lexington to I-40 in Winston-Salem but it got rejected because of the odd 1st digit and was subsequently changed to Future I-285. I'm aware of odd-numbered 3-di's elsewhere that reconnected with their parents or connected with another interstate but I figured they were either grandfathered, waivered by FHWA, or written into law. I don't have a problem with I-795 keeping it's designation (I actually prefer it that way).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 06, 2016, 04:54:45 PM
Bruce Siceloff - aka the Road Worrier - wrote his last column for the N&O two weeks ago.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/road-worrier-blog/article79284317.html

He and his wife received Fulbright scholar grants to teach in Montenegro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 06, 2016, 06:33:55 PM
I just thought of something. When US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison was signed into law as a future interstate, was the I-795 designation itself written into law or will NCDOT have to get a waiver from FHWA to keep I-795 as-is without renumbering to an even number once US-117 is upgraded and the area between Mar-Mac and Ash Street bypassed? Everything I've read from NCDOT indicates that they intend on keeping the I-795 designation once it's extended, but I don't know if they'll need a waiver from FHWA or not.  :hmmm:

Do we have a misunderstanding here? My belief was that the even first digit indicates that the route will loop, that is, it will return to the parent; the odd first digit indicates that the route will not return to the parent, whether it ends at another interstate or not. As long ago as 1976, I-35W in Kansas was renumbered I-135, not I-235; it connects I-35 to I-70. I was surprised that NC got I-495 to run from I-95 to I-540; I thought that number should have had an odd first digit. If I'm right about this, there's no problem with I-795 when it is extended.

The current rules are thus:  If its Odd, it's a spur; if its even, then it is either a loop or connector.  I-495 was a connector, between I-440 and I-540 and eventually I-95.  Future I-285 is also a connector between I-85 and I-40.  If its odd and connects to another interstate, it could be renumbered or be waived for various reasons.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 06, 2016, 10:07:18 PM
The current rules are thus:  If its Odd, it's a spur; if its even, then it is either a loop or connector.  I-495 was a connector, between I-440 and I-540 and eventually I-95.  Future I-285 is also a connector between I-85 and I-40.  If its odd and connects to another interstate, it could be renumbered or be waived for various reasons.
I can think of at least three cases of spurs that have become (or are becoming) connectors:

I-180 in PA (connects I-80 to Future I-99)
I-155 in TN (connects I-55 to Future I-69)
I-310 in LA (connects I-10 to Future I-49)

As far as I know, there's no move to renumber any of these.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on June 07, 2016, 03:39:41 AM
Also, I-380 in Pennsylvania connecting I-80 to I-84 (and I-81).  To me this is a spur route which happens to connect to another interstate--which is not I-80.  Just because the plan is for this freeway to connect to I-40 does not necessarily mean that I-795 would have to change to I-695 or I-895.  I-795 effectively acts as a spur from I-95.  In the plan, I-795 would not return to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 07, 2016, 07:51:56 AM
Also, I-380 in Pennsylvania connecting I-80 to I-84 (and I-81).  To me this is a spur route which happens to connect to another interstate--which is not I-80.  Just because the plan is for this freeway to connect to I-40 does not necessarily mean that I-795 would have to change to I-695 or I-895.  I-795 effectively acts as a spur from I-95.  In the plan, I-795 would not return to I-95.

Agreed, which is why we are saying words like "could" and "may" here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 07, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
Is there a site that shows future road improvement proposals in NC? Having driven from Hickory to Lenoir several times in the last week, the corridor really seems to need freewayization, does the ADT justify that?  Also, as a cool FYI, I was in a retaurant on Sunday, AJ's that had lots of pics of a 1950's era rotary at what is now the 321/64/90/18 intersection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 08, 2016, 06:55:51 AM
Some stuff is here - http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Region=*&Counties=*
Interactive map of their 10-year STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Looks like some longer range stuff can be accessed here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/Comprehensive-Transportation-Plans.aspx?county=Caldwell

It appears they want to widen 321 to 6 lanes and there is a superstreet conversion project near Lenoir in the STIP...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 08, 2016, 02:35:53 PM
Some stuff is here - http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/projectsstudies/default.html?Region=*&Counties=*
Interactive map of their 10-year STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Looks like some longer range stuff can be accessed here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/Comprehensive-Transportation-Plans.aspx?county=Caldwell

It appears they want to widen 321 to 6 lanes and there is a superstreet conversion project near Lenoir in the STIP...

Thank you, I will scope that out.  Just an FYI, there has been HUGE surveying activity on I-40 between at least exit 116 (where I exit to go home from my new job) and exit 125 where a 6 lane section from the east and Conover ends.  With a massive EB traffic jam Sunday for a minimum of 8 miles or more Sunday evening with tourists coming back from Asheville, and improvement out here will be big.

OT, Damm the economy here is sooooo much better than in California.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 08, 2016, 04:23:46 PM
Thank you, I will scope that out.  Just an FYI, there has been HUGE surveying activity on I-40 between at least exit 116 (where I exit to go home from my new job) and exit 125 where a 6 lane section from the east and Conover ends.  With a massive EB traffic jam Sunday for a minimum of 8 miles or more Sunday evening with tourists coming back from Asheville, and improvement out here will be big.

OT, Damm the economy here is sooooo much better than in California.

This project (I-0911) was added to the STIP last fall on a hurry-up basis with construction to start in fiscal 2017-18. I believe this explains the sudden surveying activity.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2016, 04:38:32 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 14, 2016, 05:27:40 PM

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

100%?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 14, 2016, 06:26:45 PM
Let's see them get it done first.  There's *A LOT* of bulldozing that would be involved along North Capital.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 14, 2016, 06:48:54 PM
You'd think they would have at least done some corridor preservation if that was the long term plan. All they keep doing is adding lights in northern Wake to US-1 and now its spreading into Franklin County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 14, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
I want to thank you for the link to the state's planned road improvements.  I saw some very aggressive projects on a "4.0" list.  Some seemed a bit overkill like widening US 64 to 4 lanes divided from Morganton to Lenoir, but I can see that being needed in 15 years.  As part of what I mentioned upthread, lots more surveying at the Icard exit, where I enter and exit 40 for my work commute.  The 40 ramps are part of a 5 way intersection wherin a busy access road serving 3 fast food establishements and the local PO also make up a leg.  I would look forward to any improvement allowing Miller Bridge Road a more free flowing entrance onto 40.  One other item that throgh me for a loop were upgrades to Causby Road, Exit 96, while not listing the much more substandard and busier Jamestown Road, Exit 100.  I think it may be political:  Seems like there is a Causby business in every commercial segment around here plus the mayor of Glen alpine seems to have an unusual amount of pull in Raleigh.

Now that I am aware of the Hickory MPO, I will endeavor to attend meetings and push for a small local project that is part of my daily commute:  NC 18 and Sugarloaf Road is a disaster waiting to happen and could use at minimum a realignment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on June 14, 2016, 10:15:40 PM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on June 14, 2016, 11:08:03 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 14, 2016, 11:44:09 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87
Three projects to upgrade US 1 to a freeway between I-540 and NC 98 are listed in the table of preliminary projects eligible to be included in the 2018-2027 STIP. They all have relatively high project scores (between 60 and 70/100 for State Mobility and 49-50/70 for Regional Mobility) that would increase the odds they make it into, at least, the Draft STIP due out in January. The downside may be the cost which is estimated to be about $375 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 03:37:10 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 04:02:44 AM
 
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:
How I-38? It would fit right in with a mostly east-west I-87

(https://jlobdell76.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/what.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on June 15, 2016, 05:52:46 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.

I had an internship in NC one summer, and to go back to VA on weekends I would connect to I-85 from NC 50 and US 15 (via Creedmoor) due to hearing about how bad US 1 traffic is.  Maybe a freeway corridor on US 1 would also help relieve NC 50 slightly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2016, 06:52:01 AM
Would you save much drive time from Raleigh to DC if you make US 1 a freeway up through the I-85 intersection in Henderson? Connecting Raleigh to Richmond and DC in a more direct manner than US 64/I-95 might be worthwhile but I'm not sure if you save much time by doing so.

According to Google Maps, from the center of Raleigh to the center of Richmond using US-1/I-85 is 155 miles. Using US-64/I-95 is 170 miles. Right now, US-64/I-95 would be the better option since there are no traffic lights once you get on US-64. US-1 still has traffic lights, so the drive time wouldn't be better than US-64/I-95 even though it's 15 miles shorter. If US-1 was upgraded between I-540 and I-85, then US-1/I-85 would be a time-saver. When I-495 came about, I never really bought the argument that it would connect Raleigh to the northeast (other than east and southeast Raleigh, which is better served by US-64/I-95) when upgrading US-1 would do a better job at that. Upgrading US-64 to connect to Hampton Roads is a more logical argument for that route. If NCDOT actually does decide to upgrade US-1 all the way to I-85, I wouldn't be opposed to I-685 if NCDOT decides to go for it. All of the other even-numbered I-x85's are already taken.

I had an internship in NC one summer, and to go back to VA on weekends I would connect to I-85 from NC 50 and US 15 (via Creedmoor) due to hearing about how bad US 1 traffic is.  Maybe a freeway corridor on US 1 would also help relieve NC 50 slightly.

It really depends on where you live in Wake County.  If you live in east wake, like I do, you take 64 to 95.  North Raleigh and North Wake (Wake Forest) is US 1 on Nc 50 to 85.  Western wake is either 70 or Nc 147 to 15/501 - later the east end connector) to 85.

The issue with one isn't the entire length it's from Wake Forest south.  South of New Falls of Neuse/Main St (US 1A) to 540 and then 440 being the worst. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 15, 2016, 08:47:59 AM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

It's been slated to become a freeway since at least the 90s.  And to Adam's & njroadfan's point - there would be a lot of row going on because much of the corridor is not preserved - there isn't many if at all protected areas along US 1.  There's also the possibility of the Southeast High Speed Rail along the same corridor. More of if it gets funded.  The somewhat abandoned rail line parallel to 1 will be part of the Richmond to Raleigh route.

The intersections that need it the most (honestly they all do) is (going south to North) Durant.  There's no interchange corridor protection here.  The SW corner of the interchange - though wooded and vacant - is up for sale and zoned commercial. Thorton Road though you can't build to the west (Malinkrodt has a large pharma plant there) so you have to tear down or come awfully close to the existing Sheetz. Burlington Mills Road - again no corridor preservation for an interchange. And obviously S Main.

Gresham Lake Road can be closed as that traffic can be diverted onto Capital Hills Drive go behind all of the Leith Dealerships and tie into Durant.  Sharon Farms Road can also be closed as that traffic can go to Burlington Mills Road.

Some form of service roads will have to be built and some existing ones can be utilized.  Would a new bridge over the Neuse River be needed?

As you can see - upgrading to a needed freeway from 540 to S. main (Us 1A) isn't going to be an easy task.  They really should have ( and granted hindsight is 20/20) steps to preserve the corridor 20 years ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 10:14:21 AM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

Would a new bridge over the Neuse River be needed?

As you can see - upgrading to a needed freeway from 540 to S. main (Us 1A) isn't going to be an easy task.  They really should have ( and granted hindsight is 20/20) steps to preserve the corridor 20 years ago.

I just looked at the Neuse River bridges on US-1 using Google Streetview and there's good news and bad news. Good news is the northbound span is definitely Interstate standard, since both shoulders are wide enough. Bad news is the southbound bridge will have to be replaced or widened unless FHWA grants a waiver. The outside shoulder is ok, but the inner shoulder appears to be a little too narrow. And yeah, it was a dumb move on NCDOT's part to not preserve the corridor. I guess they didn't anticipate the population boom in the Triangle happening so fast. Construction there is going to be a mess, whenever it finally begins.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 15, 2016, 10:21:15 AM
I just looked on the Super 70 Corridor Commission's website to see if they finally posted their meeting minutes from last month. No dice, but they did post NCDOT's US-70 Corridor status as it stands from June 2. Seems like every bit of the corridor except the freeway section from Dover to New Bern and the Northern Carteret Bypass (no new developments since 2009 it seems) is either in the planning stages or under construction. It's a good read.

Don't worry, it's only 18 pages, 1.81MB.

http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20June%202016.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/cms/lib04/NC01920485/Centricity/Domain/14/US%2070%20Corridor%20Status-%20June%202016.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 15, 2016, 05:04:13 PM
NCDOT renovated another rest area, this time Southbound I-85 rest area in Alamance County (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12597).  Earlier this year they opened a new rest area in Haywood County, will open a new rest area on I-77 next year and have been renovating a lot of rest areas in the state as of late.  Of course, I believe all this is a good thing, but it makes me wonder why North Carolina is gung-ho about rest areas while the neighboring states have been cutting back?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 15, 2016, 05:21:04 PM
I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?
This is an idea for the Fictional Highways forum; I don't see any possibility of US 1 being converted to a freeway all the way to Henderson. The purpose of the freeway to NC 98 is to ease commuting in Raleigh. Also, the I-885 project in Durham will provide a better connection to I-85 for Cary, Apex, and the west side of Raleigh (and it is actually under construction).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 15, 2016, 10:06:57 PM
The issue with one isn't the entire length it's from Wake Forest south.  South of New Falls of Neuse/Main St (US 1A) to 540 and then 440 being the worst. 

Lately I've been taking Falls of Neuse/Wake Forest Rd. down to 440, it seems to be faster despite not being as direct. Less traffic and better light timing. I generally prefer taking  I-85/US-1 to my family's place in southwestern Wake. I-95 can be a total PITA south of Petersburg in the summer. I-85 is just that much more relaxing of a drive (current NC construction not withstanding).

Coming back home in the morning I have been doing US-64/I-95 again, mostly because they moved closer to US-401. Once I get to I-40, taking US-64 becomes a no brainer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 16, 2016, 10:12:59 AM
FWIW, it would make a good I-x87 if they upgraded the rest of the US 1 corridor to Rockingham and extended I-87 onto it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 16, 2016, 11:40:46 AM
I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?
I don't see any possibility of US 1 being converted to a freeway all the way to Henderson. We'll agree to disagree. It might not happen in the near future, but I think it'll be on their radar in the next 20 years.

The purpose of the freeway to NC 98 is to ease commuting in Raleigh. Obviously.

Also, the I-885 project in Durham will provide a better connection to I-85 for Cary, Apex, and the west side of Raleigh (and it is actually under construction). Yep, I saw the construction when I came through Durham on my way to Greenville last September and it will indeed be a great connection to I-85 for that region. Not so much for traffic heading to VA and points north from north/northeast Raleigh and vice versa.

Replied in bold.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 16, 2016, 11:42:41 AM
FWIW, it would make a good I-x87 if they upgraded the rest of the US 1 corridor to Rockingham and extended I-87 onto it.

Now, THAT's a fictional idea if ever I saw one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2016, 03:02:25 PM
Does anyone think the US 1 corridor will be reapplied to the Interstate System, after the proposal to make it Interstate 140 was shot down?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 16, 2016, 04:53:07 PM
Presently, no...the perception of need for an Interstate-grade corridor down US 1 toward Rockingham just isn't there.  Also, the probability of blowback from landowners in the Southern Pines region might be a political bridge too far.  But, hey, this is North Carolina, so there's no telling what plans might emerge in 20 years or so, particularly if the 85-40 corridor between Charlotte & Raleigh regularly hits a "F" LOS!  But even the deployment of US 1 as an interregional relief corridor would depend upon corresponding full-scale development of the US 74 corridor; and presently, I haven't heard of any solid plans to upgrade that corridor east of the Monroe bypass.  Right now, with I-42 and I-87 in the mix, NC has pretty much got a full plate going; don't see much new activity happening until what's currently under development is either completed or well on the way toward such.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 16, 2016, 04:59:27 PM
Does anyone think the US 1 corridor will be reapplied to the Interstate System, after the proposal to make it Interstate 140 was shot down?

Considering the fact that NCDOT never tried again after getting rejected in 1999, I'd say no and I don't think an interstate spur to Sanford is needed. The only section of US-1 that NCDOT seems to be focusing on at the moment is from I-540 to Wake Forest. The only part of US-1 that would make a logical 3-di is from I-540 to I-85 if NCDOT decides to extend the freeway conversion beyond Wake Forest and there are currently no plans for it. NCDOT is only focusing on the most congested part for the time being.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 16, 2016, 10:12:09 PM
North of Wake Forest, US-1 is pretty empty.... for now. The most work they would have to do there is bypass Kittrell. NCDOT does have the southern section on long range plans. They really want to bypass that mess in Aberdeen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2016, 07:49:05 AM
Upgrading 1 to a freeway is a moot point.  Because of the lack of access control and the need to either replace or buy-out all of that private access (nevermind the hordes of smaller intersections), such a project would easily run over half-a-billion, and nobody has the political clout to get that level of funding.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 17, 2016, 12:30:39 PM
NCDOT has begun posting 36 month tentative project letting lists in addition to their 12-month lists. These are some of the more interesting ones listed starting in 2017, with their tentative letting dates:
US 74 Shelby Bypass from NC 226 to NC 150: 5/16/17
Winston-Salem N. Beltway from US 158 to US 311: 10/17/17
Morrisville Pkwy Ext. from NC 540: 12/19/17
US 74 Shelby Bypass from SR 1318 to NC 150: 1/16/18
I-840 Greensboro Loop US 29 (I-785) to Lawndale Dr: 7/17/18
US 70 Havelock Bypass (Future I-42): 9/18/18
Fayetteville Outer Loop from Camden Rd to Strickland: 9/18/18
Upgrade US 74 int. with Broadbridge Rd (Robeson County) to interchange: 10/16/18

The entire list is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36Mth%20Let%20July2016-June2019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36Mth%20Let%20July2016-June2019.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 17, 2016, 12:42:51 PM
Lane closures on Neuse and Trent River Bridges from today through June 15th (http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Lane-closures-on-two-popular-bridges-starting-today-370612161.html)


Quote
Closures will be happening on the N.C. 55 / U.S. 70 bridge over the Trent River, and the N.C. 55 / U.S. 17 bridge over the Neuse River will have lane closures beginning at 9 a.m., Tuesday.[/font]One lane will be closed 24/7, and at least one lane will remain open from now until June 15th.
DOT crews will be replacing expansion joints and lay down a protective coating on both bridges during the next few months.


I can happily report that the bridge work is finished, the new coating seems to help when the bridges are wet, there is definitely more grip available. Oh and they repainted the stripes, the lane markers are now the white/black stripes we were discussing in another thread somewhere, and they even added arrows on the pavement like one would see at a surface street intersection for the Exit 417A lanes (right lane is right only and center lane as an option lane).

I'll try to get a picture or 2 of the pavement and markings the next time my wife is with me and we go that way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 17, 2016, 01:01:30 PM
NCDOT has begun posting 36 month tentative project letting lists in addition to their 12-month lists. These are some of the more interesting ones listed starting in 2017, with their tentative letting dates:
US 74 Shelby Bypass from NC 226 to NC 150: 5/16/17
Winston-Salem N. Beltway from US 158 to US 311: 10/17/17
Morrisville Pkwy Ext. from NC 540: 12/19/17
US 74 Shelby Bypass from SR 1318 to NC 150: 1/16/18
I-795 Greensboro Loop US 29 to Lawndale Dr: 7/17/18
US 70 Havelock Bypass (Future I-42): 9/18/18
Fayetteville Outer Loop from Camden Rd to Strickland: 9/18/18
Upgrade US 74 int. with Broadbridge Rd (Robeson County) to interchange: 10/16/18

The entire list is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36Mth%20Let%20July2016-June2019.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36Mth%20Let%20July2016-June2019.pdf)



Hello, I wanted to point out that the Greensboro Loop is called I-840 since it is between US 29 (I-785) and Lawndale. :) But they are going to finish the loop sooner than expected. That is a good news.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 17, 2016, 02:28:30 PM
Speaking of 785, are there any plans to complete the interstate conversion? I haven't seen much on that.

Is there still a lot of work to do on US29?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 17, 2016, 03:03:36 PM
Speaking of 785, are there any plans to complete the interstate conversion? I haven't seen much on that.

Is there still a lot of work to do on US29?
I've corrected my post, meant to include the I-785 with US 29, not the Loop.
As for possible upgrades to US 29, north of the Loop to designate it I-785, the only project listed is from the preliminary list of 2018-2027 STIP projects. The project is limited to only the US 29 Reidsville Bypass from NC 150 northward to the return of Bus. 29. It calls for upgrading the route to interstate standards at a cost of $89.5 million. The strategic mobility formula used to rank projects, however, gives it a rather low statewide benefit score of 47/100, so it may not make the final 2018-27 project list. There are no other projects listed to upgrade US 29 between the Loop and NC 150 where most of the work is needed. From the looks of it then, it appears completing I-785 will not happen until 2030, at the earliest.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 17, 2016, 03:13:21 PM
Maybe when they designated Interstate 785 as a future Interstate, the signs should have indicated it would be a distant future Interstate Highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 17, 2016, 03:43:07 PM
Speaking of 785, are there any plans to complete the interstate conversion? I haven't seen much on that.

Is there still a lot of work to do on US29?

A little more than half of US-29/Future I-785 in NC is already finished. From just south of Reidsville to the VA state line is already interstate standard. It used to be 65mph but NCDOT raised it to 70mph not too long ago. The speed limit drops back down to 65mph once you cross into VA. I wish VDOT would also raise their section to 70mph. VA's section of US-29/Future I-785 (Danville Expressway) around Danville will need minor work. There's a RIRO on both sides of US-29 at Elizabeth Street and the acceleration on-ramps at some of the interchanges are a bit short. There are no plans by VDOT to close the Elizabeth Street RIRO or lengthen some of the ramps. I think I-785 is supposed to end at the US-58/US-360 interchange on the east side of Danville, but I-785 should follow the rest of the US-29 freeway north until the freeway ends at the Business US-29 junction near Blairs, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 17, 2016, 04:37:19 PM
Speaking of 785, are there any plans to complete the interstate conversion? I haven't seen much on that.

Is there still a lot of work to do on US29?


Yeah, there are still more work to be done on US 29 between the Greensboro Loop and Business 29 exit (closing intersections, upgrading shoulders, interchange work, etc.) before it can be signed I-785 from the Loop to the state line. I don't know about how complete the VA's side of US 29 is, however.

For time being, after the I-785 part of the Greensboro Eastern Loop is complete, it will be designed as I-785 (and Future I-840) which will temporarily end at US 29 for years to come even if the Loop is finished first...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 17, 2016, 05:16:16 PM
I don't know about how complete the VA's side of US 29 is, however.

All that's left on the VA side of US-29 is eliminating the Elizabeth Street RIRO's in Danville and lengthening the acceleration ramps at some of the interchanges. Then it'll be good to go.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 17, 2016, 08:55:34 PM
http://www.wral.com/newly-finished-lanes-to-be-opened-in-fortify-zone-friday-night/15785931/ (http://www.wral.com/newly-finished-lanes-to-be-opened-in-fortify-zone-friday-night/15785931/)

Quote
As construction work continues in the Fortify zone on Interstate 40 in south Raleigh, crews are set on Friday to shift traffic onto newly finished lanes of I-40 West.

Weather permitting, contractors will shift traffic to new lanes from west of Lake Wheeler Road to west of the Avent Ferry Road bridge overnight Friday into Saturday morning.

A similar shift took place last month on I-40 East.

Crews have spent this week preparing for the move by moving barriers and painting new lane markings.

Eventually, concrete barriers will be moved in place in the area to provide additional protection for workers still finishing other parts of the highway.

There are more lane shifts on inside travel lanes planned for the summer, North Carolina Department of Transportation officials said.

All traffic in the 8.5-mile I-40 section of the project should be on the new travel lanes by early fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 18, 2016, 12:06:25 PM
http://www.wral.com/newly-finished-lanes-to-be-opened-in-fortify-zone-friday-night/15785931/ (http://www.wral.com/newly-finished-lanes-to-be-opened-in-fortify-zone-friday-night/15785931/)

Quote
As construction work continues in the Fortify zone on Interstate 40 in south Raleigh, crews are set on Friday to shift traffic onto newly finished lanes of I-40 West.

Weather permitting, contractors will shift traffic to new lanes from west of Lake Wheeler Road to west of the Avent Ferry Road bridge overnight Friday into Saturday morning.

A similar shift took place last month on I-40 East.

Crews have spent this week preparing for the move by moving barriers and painting new lane markings.

Eventually, concrete barriers will be moved in place in the area to provide additional protection for workers still finishing other parts of the highway.

There are more lane shifts on inside travel lanes planned for the summer, North Carolina Department of Transportation officials said.

All traffic in the 8.5-mile I-40 section of the project should be on the new travel lanes by early fall.
NCDOT posted a news release this morning to say the work has been postponed due to rain until next week:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12647 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=12647)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 18, 2016, 03:53:17 PM
I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?
I don't see any possibility of US 1 being converted to a freeway all the way to Henderson. We'll agree to disagree. It might not happen in the near future, but I think it'll be on their radar in the next 20 years.

The purpose of the freeway to NC 98 is to ease commuting in Raleigh. Obviously.

Also, the I-885 project in Durham will provide a better connection to I-85 for Cary, Apex, and the west side of Raleigh (and it is actually under construction). Yep, I saw the construction when I came through Durham on my way to Greenville last September and it will indeed be a great connection to I-85 for that region. Not so much for traffic heading to VA and points north from north/northeast Raleigh and vice versa.

Replied in bold.
North of Wake Forest, US-1 is pretty empty.... for now. The most work they would have to do there is bypass Kittrell. NCDOT does have the southern section on long range plans. They really want to bypass that mess in Aberdeen.

I'd also say upgrading the Franklinton bypass would take some work. I could see them actually just building a new alignment instead of upgrading that small stretch of US 1.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 18, 2016, 03:55:18 PM
I noticed on the Raleigh RTA's website and the News & Observer that US-1 from I-540 north to NC-98/Durham Road in Wake Forest is slated to be upgraded to a freeway.

http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/ (http://letsgetmoving.org/priorities/streets/us-1-north/)

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article10182638.html)

Quote
- Convert Raleigh’s Capital Boulevard (U.S. 1) to a freeway between the northern 540 Outer Loop and N.C. 98 at Wake Forest. A freeway conversion also is planned for South Miami Boulevard between T.W. Alexander Drive and Lynn Road in Durham. Other clogged intersections in Durham and Wake counties will be upgraded to freeway-style interchanges.

I doubt the US-1 freeway would end at NC-98 in Wake Forest permanently. I think it's likely that NCDOT will want to extend the freeway conversion to I-85 in Henderson eventually. If they do, does anybody wanna guess the odds that NCDOT will ask AASHTO and FHWA to turn US-1 between I-540 and I-85 into I-685?  :poke:

Would a new bridge over the Neuse River be needed?

As you can see - upgrading to a needed freeway from 540 to S. main (Us 1A) isn't going to be an easy task.  They really should have ( and granted hindsight is 20/20) steps to preserve the corridor 20 years ago.

I just looked at the Neuse River bridges on US-1 using Google Streetview and there's good news and bad news. Good news is the northbound span is definitely Interstate standard, since both shoulders are wide enough. Bad news is the southbound bridge will have to be replaced or widened unless FHWA grants a waiver. The outside shoulder is ok, but the inner shoulder appears to be a little too narrow. And yeah, it was a dumb move on NCDOT's part to not preserve the corridor. I guess they didn't anticipate the population boom in the Triangle happening so fast. Construction there is going to be a mess, whenever it finally begins.

There's also the issue of straightening out the curve, possibly eliminating the hill or the grade of the hill approaching the river, and the apartment complex on the south end of the river off of US 1 North.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2016, 12:59:02 AM
Is there a website dedicated to the I-40/77 interchange work.  Went through there with my new car tonight and was ticked that it bottomed out twice on dips on the 40 mainline going 10 MPH under the posted construction speed.  I got a 2008 Lucerne with only 30K miles, so far love it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 19, 2016, 03:54:10 AM
Is there a website dedicated to the I-40/77 interchange work.  Went through there with my new car tonight and was ticked that it bottomed out twice on dips on the 40 mainline going 10 MPH under the posted construction speed.  I got a 2008 Lucerne with only 30K miles, so far love it.

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40i77improvements/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2016, 10:52:58 PM
Saw an oddity tady, probably discussed before.  I was in Charlotte to hawk my armour goods at SCA practice, then to do duck marketing research at the state farmers market.  Anyhow, I saw a pentagonal shaped sign on Billy Graham Pkwy, signing the road as Charlotte City Route 4.  Are there any other cities with a signed route system and what are the other routes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 20, 2016, 12:13:07 AM
Saw an oddity tady, probably discussed before.  I was in Charlotte to hawk my armour goods at SCA practice, then to do duck marketing research at the state farmers market.  Anyhow, I saw a pentagonal shaped sign on Billy Graham Pkwy, signing the road as Charlotte City Route 4.  Are there any other cities with a signed route system and what are the other routes?

Not an oddity, it's Charlotte Route 4 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Route_4).  It is the only one in the state and it is a city designation along mostly NCDOT secondary roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 20, 2016, 07:43:14 AM
Is there a website dedicated to the I-40/77 interchange work.  Went through there with my new car tonight and was ticked that it bottomed out twice on dips on the 40 mainline going 10 MPH under the posted construction speed.  I got a 2008 Lucerne with only 30K miles, so far love it.

I know exactly the two dips you speak of. I have been through that area 6 or 7 times in the last 6 months and I never remember that the first one is there until my head hits the roof of my car. :pan:
Then I end up pissing whoever is behind me off when I slow down, ALOT, for the second one because I am still seeing stars from he first one, LOL. :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2016, 11:09:43 AM
http://www.wral.com/new-lanes-open-in-fortify-work-zone-in-south-raleigh/15791911/ (http://www.wral.com/new-lanes-open-in-fortify-work-zone-in-south-raleigh/15791911/)

Quote
Drivers who commute through the Fortify work zone on Interstate 40 were enjoying new travel lanes Monday morning after a traffic shift took place overnight.

Crews on Sunday shifted traffic from west of Lake Wheeler Road to west of the Avent Ferry Road bridge, a sign of the continued progress of the giant highway reconstruction project in south Raleigh.

A similar shift took place last month on I-40 East.

Crews spent much of last week preparing for the move by moving barriers and painting new lane markings.

Eventually, concrete barriers will be moved in place in the area to provide additional protection for workers still finishing other parts of the highway.

There are more lane shifts on inside travel lanes planned for the summer, North Carolina Department of Transportation officials said.

All traffic in the 8.5-mile I-40 section of the project should be on the new travel lanes by early fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 20, 2016, 11:31:06 AM
NCDOT has opened a web portal to allow the public to comment on what projects should be included on the new 2018-2027 State TIP, by Division. The project list and the portal can be reached through:
http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html (http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2018-2027.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 20, 2016, 12:07:56 PM
Thank you for that info, I will be submitting this local intersection for consideration for improvement.  https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6337694,-81.5196573,19z
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2016, 12:44:34 PM
So can someone recap the interstate system in NC along with the future interstate system?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 24, 2016, 01:18:08 PM
See 4th reply -

https://www.facebook.com/groups/seroads/permalink/1066708250085511/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on June 24, 2016, 03:28:58 PM
Anything of of the Facebook grid?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 24, 2016, 04:39:04 PM
When US 17 meets US 70 at the western junction, there is an interchange that indicates that US 17 was planned to continue north of US 70, and not head eastward with 70, and then by itself to Bridgeton. Does anyone know if US 17 will eventually be extended north of US 70, as the stubs indicate, or has that proposal been canceled? I suspect it is a dead project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on June 24, 2016, 05:40:57 PM
When US 17 meets US 70 at the western junction, there is an interchange that indicates that US 17 was planned to continue north of US 70, and not head eastward with 70, and then by itself to Bridgeton. Does anyone know if US 17 will eventually be extended north of US 70, as the stubs indicate, or has that proposal been canceled? I suspect it is a dead project.

Nope, its not a dead project.

It's a future unfunded project to complete the bypass of New Bern on US-17. Its supposed to come out onto existing US-17 in the vicinity of the US-17 and Weyerhaeuser Rd intersection. If you click on that link that bob7374 provided in post #963 above and zoom the map into the area you can see the general alignment of what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 28, 2016, 07:59:19 PM
http://www.wral.com/committee-passes-freeze-on-new-highway-construction/15813953/ (http://www.wral.com/committee-passes-freeze-on-new-highway-construction/15813953/)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. – The House Transportation Committee approved a bill Tuesday that would keep the Department of Transportation from creating new corridor maps and eliminating the current maps — essentially ending any new major highway construction plans on the books, if the land has not been purchased yet, and stalling the process for future plans for at least a year.

The bill comes after the North Carolina Supreme Court said the state owes money to property owners whose land and property rights were affected by current Map Act restrictions.

At this point, the status of the controversial extension of Wake County’s N.C. Highway 540 loop is unknown. The DOT has purchased some of the land necessary to build the toll highway but not all of it — making it difficult to know what the next steps would be.


Legislators are making four major changes with House Bill 959 in an attempt to begin the mitigation process. The first keeps the DOT from creating any new maps for future highway plans until July 2017 and eliminates all current maps.

In this one-year period, the bill requires the DOT to study the Map Act process and come up with proposals to fix the issues the Supreme Court found.

"This is only the first step. We have a lot of landowners out there who potentially could pursue claims against the state for what was the law until it was recently declared unconstitutional," Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, said.

The Map Act allows for the DOT and local governing bodies to create corridor maps, and after the map has been filed, no new building permits or subdivisions would be approved for land in the corridor. This keeps those property owners from building or adding on to their properties and often takes away their ability to sell their properties because it can not be developed.

The Map Act does allow for property owners in the map area to request an exception, and compensation is, in theory, also required.

The state Supreme Court’s decision and House Bill 959 attempt to clarify what that compensation looks like and where the compensation comes from.

The new bill puts those costs on the state’s Strategic Transportation Investments program, under the particular tier — statewide, regional or divisional — that created the corridor map and planned to fund the highway or transportation project.

House Bill 959 passed the House Transportation Committee and will go back to the Senate for further approval.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 28, 2016, 09:29:04 PM
http://www.wral.com/committee-passes-freeze-on-new-highway-construction/15813953/ (http://www.wral.com/committee-passes-freeze-on-new-highway-construction/15813953/)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. – The House Transportation Committee approved a bill Tuesday that would keep the Department of Transportation from creating new corridor maps and eliminating the current maps — essentially ending any new major highway construction plans on the books, if the land has not been purchased yet, and stalling the process for future plans for at least a year.

The bill comes after the North Carolina Supreme Court said the state owes money to property owners whose land and property rights were affected by current Map Act restrictions.

At this point, the status of the controversial extension of Wake County’s N.C. Highway 540 loop is unknown. The DOT has purchased some of the land necessary to build the toll highway but not all of it — making it difficult to know what the next steps would be.


Legislators are making four major changes with House Bill 959 in an attempt to begin the mitigation process. The first keeps the DOT from creating any new maps for future highway plans until July 2017 and eliminates all current maps.

In this one-year period, the bill requires the DOT to study the Map Act process and come up with proposals to fix the issues the Supreme Court found.

"This is only the first step. We have a lot of landowners out there who potentially could pursue claims against the state for what was the law until it was recently declared unconstitutional," Rep. Chuck McGrady, R-Henderson, said.

The Map Act allows for the DOT and local governing bodies to create corridor maps, and after the map has been filed, no new building permits or subdivisions would be approved for land in the corridor. This keeps those property owners from building or adding on to their properties and often takes away their ability to sell their properties because it can not be developed.

The Map Act does allow for property owners in the map area to request an exception, and compensation is, in theory, also required.

The state Supreme Court’s decision and House Bill 959 attempt to clarify what that compensation looks like and where the compensation comes from.

The new bill puts those costs on the state’s Strategic Transportation Investments program, under the particular tier — statewide, regional or divisional — that created the corridor map and planned to fund the highway or transportation project.

House Bill 959 passed the House Transportation Committee and will go back to the Senate for further approval.


we will see if that does happen. It probably won't go past the Senate though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 28, 2016, 10:22:55 PM
I took a different approach to work today wherein I exited from 40 EB at Long View and went north to 70 East.  I noted that in the last 3 weeks that major surveying work has been done on the road between the Long View exit on 40 and the 70 ramps.  Looks like enough for the road to go 4 lanes along with major improvements to the ramps to 70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 30, 2016, 09:00:36 PM
Construction of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass is now officially underway.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12695 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=12695)

Quote
ASHEBORO — Governor Pat McCrory and N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson joined state and local representatives Thursday afternoon to celebrate the groundbreaking of the U.S. 64 Asheboro Bypass. The bypass will relieve heavy traffic congestion, improve local access and increase safety along the corridor.

The project also includes the 1.8-mile Zoo Connector, which will improve access to the North Carolina Zoological Park and alleviate current congestion issues on N.C. 159 (Zoo Parkway).

“This project will help provide a freeway connection to the North Carolina Zoo and alleviate current issues with traffic congestion for both visitors and people who live here,”  said Governor McCrory. “This is one of many projects under construction across the state that will help improve regional and cross-state connectivity that are central to enhancing economic development and quality of life.”

The new bypass is a major part of Governor McCrory’s 25-Year Transportation Vision to enhance travel safety and to better connect North Carolinians to jobs, education, healthcare and recreation opportunities.

New transportation projects in the state’s current 10-year plan are funded through the Strategic Mobility Formula, a new way of more efficiently investing transportation dollars by using a data-driven scoring process along with local input to fund more projects and create more jobs. Governor McCrory championed the new mobility formula and signed it into law in June 2013.

“The U.S. 64 Bypass is a significant project for this region because it will improve travel time for locals and visitors and provide an easy access point to the Zoo, one of our state’s great tourist destinations,”  Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson said. “This project was made possible thanks to the new transportation formula championed by Governor McCrory that prioritizes projects based on need, not politics.”

The U.S. 64 Asheboro Bypass is a 16.1-mile four-lane highway that will improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, improve safety and enhance high-speed regional travel on the U.S. 64 corridor. The bypass is a controlled-access (no driveways) highway separated by a grassy/landscaped median. Interchanges are included at:

U.S. 64 on both ends of the project
N.C. 49
I-73/74 (U.S. 220 Bypass)
The Zoo Connector
N.C. 42
The Zoo Connector is a full-access two-lane roadway that runs directly to the entrance of the North Carolina Zoo and can only be accessed at two break points.

A short connector road will provide access from Zoo Parkway to the Zoo Connector and the Bypass. The N.C. 159 grade-separation is being eliminated and a roundabout is proposed at the zoo entrance. The N.C. 159 interchange with U.S. 64 was also eliminated.

The U.S. 64 Asheboro Bypass is an integral part of NCDOT’s plan to upgrade the U.S. 64 and N.C. 49 corridors from Statesville to Raleigh (U.S. 64) and Charlotte to Raleigh (N.C. 49 and U.S. 64). This project has also been a good example of collaboration as NCDOT worked with the Zoo and local officials to revise the design of the Zoo Connector to move traffic away from local homeowners.

The $244 million design-build contract for the project was awarded in June 2015 to Asheboro Bypass Constructors, a joint venture between Thompson-Arthur Paving and Construction (APAC) and Wright Brothers. RK&K are the lead designers for the joint venture. Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2016 with completion scheduled for late 2019.

The project includes 6 interchanges, 24 bridges and box culverts, and 8 million cubic yards of earth and rock excavation (enough to fill over 5 Panthers stadiums from bottom to top). It will also include enhanced bridge aesthetics around the zoo, including a Drystack stone pattern stained with three different colors and elephant logos.

For more information on the U.S. 64 Asheboro Bypass project, visit the project’s website.

Project website:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheboro/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheboro/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 02, 2016, 02:16:12 PM
The NC legislature has adjourned for the year without acting on the bill that would have stopped the I-77 toll lanes project. So that project is still on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 02, 2016, 09:30:15 PM
The NC legislature has adjourned for the year without acting on the bill that would have stopped the I-77 toll lanes project. So that project is still on.

The State Senate choose not to vote on it (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/plan-to-end-i-77-tolls-speeds-through-house-committees/316614644).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 04, 2016, 09:05:23 AM
Upgrading 1 to a freeway is a moot point.  Because of the lack of access control and the need to either replace or buy-out all of that private access (nevermind the hordes of smaller intersections), such a project would easily run over half-a-billion, and nobody has the political clout to get that level of funding.


and to further complicate things - a project is finishing up on 1 in Wake Forest.  It adds a needed third lane in each direction between S. Main and NC 98.  However, it adds two lights as a result of a partial super street set up. 

1 is in good shape north of Youngsville.  If they can make 1 a full freeway (or at a minimum replace a few lights with interchanges) from 540 to 98 that would be great - but from Youngsville on north it's not really necessary.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 19, 2016, 06:31:14 PM
NCDOT has released plans for constructing the next segment of the I-840 Greensboro Loop from US 220/Battleground Ave to Lawndale Drive. The Lawndale Drive exit will be 8, while the one beyond, at North Elm St will be Exit 10. The sign plans can be found here:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2016%20Highway%20Letting/09-20-16/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Guilford%20U2524D%20C203792/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2016%20Highway%20Letting/09-20-16/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Guilford%20U2524D%20C203792/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 22, 2016, 09:44:21 AM
http://www.witn.com/content/news/Highway-11-intersection-known-for-bad-wrecks-getting-safety-upgrade-387808001.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Highway-11-intersection-known-for-bad-wrecks-getting-safety-upgrade-387808001.html)

Quote
LENOIR COUNTY, NC (WITN) - A troublesome intersection in Lenoir County is getting an upgrade.


Work began this week on improving Highway 11 and the Ferrell Road intersection, north of Kinston, the site of numerous bad accidents.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation says the intersection has a high crash incident rate, with Grainger Station Road and Ferrell Road coming into Highway 11 near each other.

Railroad tracks crossing both Ferrell Road and Highway 11 also complicate traffic in the area, as well as school traffic headed to the nearby Contentnea-Savannah School.

The DOT says the intersection will be reconfigured to eliminate some of the more dangerous crossovers on Highway 11.

Traffic on Ferrell Road will no longer to able to cross over Highway 11. Instead, drivers will have to make a right turn, with a U-turn lane installed south of the intersection.

The Grainger Station Road intersection will also be modified, according to the DOT.

Construction is scheduled to be completed by the start of school next month and cost about $375,000.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 28, 2016, 01:11:21 PM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 28, 2016, 06:56:17 PM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html

There shouldn't be much more left to build if I'm not mistaken. I still can't believe that they built those two substandard bridges over the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek knowing that it's supposed to become I-295 eventually. I can understand waiting to upgrade the I-95/US-13 interchange, but the substandard bridges doesn't make sense. Slim chance, but I can't help but wonder if it was an error on the contractor's part.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on July 28, 2016, 07:23:52 PM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html

There shouldn't be much more left to build if I'm not mistaken. I still can't believe that they built those two substandard bridges over the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek knowing that it's supposed to become I-295 eventually. I can understand waiting to upgrade the I-95/US-13 interchange, but the substandard bridges doesn't make sense. Slim chance, but I can't help but wonder if it was an error on the contractor's part.
It might have been an error. In any case, it's great that the freeway is getting closer to being completed with that new section to Fort Bragg.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 28, 2016, 10:17:23 PM
In less exciting news, NC 37 was recently extended to US 64.  http://outerbanksvoice.com/2016/07/25/direct-route-between-u-s-17-64-opens-in-washington-co/ (http://outerbanksvoice.com/2016/07/25/direct-route-between-u-s-17-64-opens-in-washington-co/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 28, 2016, 10:40:40 PM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html

There shouldn't be much more left to build if I'm not mistaken. I still can't believe that they built those two substandard bridges over the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek knowing that it's supposed to become I-295 eventually. I can understand waiting to upgrade the I-95/US-13 interchange, but the substandard bridges doesn't make sense. Slim chance, but I can't help but wonder if it was an error on the contractor's part.
It might have been an error. In any case, it's great that the freeway is getting closer to being completed with that new section to Fort Bragg.

Agreed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2016, 08:43:25 AM
Quote
In less exciting news, NC 37 was recently extended to US 64.  http://outerbanksvoice.com/2016/07/25/direct-route-between-u-s-17-64-opens-in-washington-co/

I recall seeing some of the early construction for this just before I departed Norfolk.  Better late than never, but IMO should have built when they relocated 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 29, 2016, 10:58:26 AM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html

There shouldn't be much more left to build if I'm not mistaken. I still can't believe that they built those two substandard bridges over the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek knowing that it's supposed to become I-295 eventually. I can understand waiting to upgrade the I-95/US-13 interchange, but the substandard bridges doesn't make sense. Slim chance, but I can't help but wonder if it was an error on the contractor's part.

Or oversight as in forgotten to update - remember this was built and designed before any real plans or consideration to be an interstate was made.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2016, 11:40:01 AM
On August 11 NCDOT will open the section of NC 295 (Future I-295) between US 401 (Ramsey Street) and NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Fayetteville. This will complete a freeway connection between I-95 and Fort Bragg.
http://www.fayobserver.com/opinion/editorials/weekly-wrap-outer-loop-barrels-ahead-come-on-drivers-sober/article_6db77e73-0835-5ed9-aa3a-39bab13e1231.html

There shouldn't be much more left to build if I'm not mistaken. I still can't believe that they built those two substandard bridges over the Cape Fear River and Carvers Creek knowing that it's supposed to become I-295 eventually. I can understand waiting to upgrade the I-95/US-13 interchange, but the substandard bridges doesn't make sense. Slim chance, but I can't help but wonder if it was an error on the contractor's part.

Or oversight as in forgotten to update - remember this was built and designed before any real plans or consideration to be an interstate was made.

I didn't know that it was built before it was planned to become an interstate. I guess that could also explain why the I-95/US-13 interchange has remained the way it is when the road was built. The most I remember is NCDOT applying for it to become I-195, but it got rejected years ago, so I assumed it was planned to become an interstate from the get-go.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 29, 2016, 01:39:35 PM
Goldsboro downtown street scape plan receives second TIGER grant since 2013.  This time it's a $5 million grant for the final phase of the project.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/07/27/fed-awards-goldsboro-second-multi-million-dollar-tiger-grant/

Communities throughout the state have to 1) be glad that they won't have to compete with this project anymore and 2) maybe hire away the grant application writers or shadow them for future TIGER campaigns
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2016, 04:01:06 PM
Goldsboro downtown street scape plan receives second TIGER grant since 2013.  This time it's a $5 million grant for the final phase of the project.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/07/27/fed-awards-goldsboro-second-multi-million-dollar-tiger-grant/

Communities throughout the state have to 1) be glad that they won't have to compete with this project anymore and 2) maybe hire away the grant application writers or shadow them for future TIGER campaigns

No doubt. Talk about Goldsboro getting lucky. Having lived in Wayne County and commuting there countless times, Center Street used to look like crap. Google StreetView recently updated to show the renovated parts of Center Street and I was actually impressed. More businesses have also opened up there because of the project from what I've been told. Goldsboro has certainly changed since I last lived in the area in 2009, my most recent visit being in 2013. The Berkeley Boulevard/US-13 widening between Royall Avenue and South Drive should be finished next month also.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 30, 2016, 02:55:11 AM
Goldsboro downtown street scape plan receives second TIGER grant since 2013.  This time it's a $5 million grant for the final phase of the project.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/07/27/fed-awards-goldsboro-second-multi-million-dollar-tiger-grant/

Communities throughout the state have to 1) be glad that they won't have to compete with this project anymore and 2) maybe hire away the grant application writers or shadow them for future TIGER campaigns

No doubt. Talk about Goldsboro getting lucky. Having lived in Wayne County and commuting there countless times, Center Street used to look like crap. Google StreetView recently updated to show the renovated parts of Center Street and I was actually impressed. More businesses have also opened up there because of the project from what I've been told. Goldsboro has certainly changed since I last lived in the area in 2009, my most recent visit being in 2013. The Berkeley Boulevard/US-13 widening between Royall Avenue and South Drive should be finished next month also.
I haven't been to Goldsboro since 2005. Wonder what's happened in eleven years?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 30, 2016, 06:22:46 AM
Goldsboro downtown street scape plan receives second TIGER grant since 2013.  This time it's a $5 million grant for the final phase of the project.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/07/27/fed-awards-goldsboro-second-multi-million-dollar-tiger-grant/

Communities throughout the state have to 1) be glad that they won't have to compete with this project anymore and 2) maybe hire away the grant application writers or shadow them for future TIGER campaigns

No doubt. Talk about Goldsboro getting lucky. Having lived in Wayne County and commuting there countless times, Center Street used to look like crap. Google StreetView recently updated to show the renovated parts of Center Street and I was actually impressed. More businesses have also opened up there because of the project from what I've been told. Goldsboro has certainly changed since I last lived in the area in 2009, my most recent visit being in 2013. The Berkeley Boulevard/US-13 widening between Royall Avenue and South Drive should be finished next month also.
I haven't been to Goldsboro since 2005. Wonder what's happened in eleven years?

It didn't really start to change until about 4 years ago. Before then, probably the biggest change was the opening of I-795 between I-95 in Wilson and US-70 in Goldsboro, though at the time it was initially signed as US-117, which has since returned to it's old 2-lane alignment in 2009. Goldsboro didn't expect it to become an interstate, so it took a while before they figured out how to capitalize on it. I-795 really opened up Goldsboro. I-795 is planned to be extended from US-70 in Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison, mostly by upgrading US-117 to interstate standards, though a new terrain alignment will be need to be built between US-117 just south of US-13 and NC-581/Ash Street, where the current freeway ends at the traffic light. The NC-581/Ash Street intersection will eventually become a folded diamond interchange.

More information on I-795's extension can be found in this thread if you're interested:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18390.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18390.0)

Recently, it's pretty much been growing outward, other than a few new businesses opening up on Center Street, mostly due to the Streetscape project, which is basically a rebuild of Center Street. A new 20-mile US-70 Bypass running around the north side of Goldsboro opened up 2 months ago, which will eventually become part of I-42, which will follow the US-70 corridor between I-40 near Garner and Morehead City. The city is already taking advantage of the new bypass. They recently held a groundbreaking for the new Maxwell Regional and Agricultural Convention Center, which will be located adjacent to Wayne Community College on Wayne Memorial Drive, just down the road from the US-70 Bypass interchange and the city is also looking for a large hotel to be built near the convention center. I would expect more businesses to open up near the US-70 Bypass interchanges eventually, now that it's planned to become I-42. Goldsboro will be at the crossroads of two interstates once it's all said and done.

Information on the Streetscape project on Center Street can be found here:
http://www.goldsboronc.gov/city-manager/public-affairs-department/streetscape-photos/ (http://www.goldsboronc.gov/city-manager/public-affairs-department/streetscape-photos/)

http://www.goldsboronc.gov/wp-content/uploads/streetscape2014_background.pdf (http://www.goldsboronc.gov/wp-content/uploads/streetscape2014_background.pdf)

There's a thread on I-42 also:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.0)

The only road project in the works in Goldsboro right now (other than Streetscape) is the current widening of US-13/Berkeley Boulevard between Royall Avenue and South Drive, which should be finished sometime in August.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 30, 2016, 06:52:13 PM
Goldsboro downtown street scape plan receives second TIGER grant since 2013.  This time it's a $5 million grant for the final phase of the project.

http://goldsborodailynews.com/blog/2016/07/27/fed-awards-goldsboro-second-multi-million-dollar-tiger-grant/

Communities throughout the state have to 1) be glad that they won't have to compete with this project anymore and 2) maybe hire away the grant application writers or shadow them for future TIGER campaigns

No doubt. Talk about Goldsboro getting lucky. Having lived in Wayne County and commuting there countless times, Center Street used to look like crap. Google StreetView recently updated to show the renovated parts of Center Street and I was actually impressed. More businesses have also opened up there because of the project from what I've been told. Goldsboro has certainly changed since I last lived in the area in 2009, my most recent visit being in 2013. The Berkeley Boulevard/US-13 widening between Royall Avenue and South Drive should be finished next month also.
I haven't been to Goldsboro since 2005. Wonder what's happened in eleven years?

It didn't really start to change until about 4 years ago. Before then, probably the biggest change was the opening of I-795 between I-95 in Wilson and US-70 in Goldsboro, though at the time it was initially signed as US-117, which has since returned to it's old 2-lane alignment in 2009. Goldsboro didn't expect it to become an interstate, so it took a while before they figured out how to capitalize on it. I-795 really opened up Goldsboro. I-795 is planned to be extended from US-70 in Goldsboro to I-40 near Faison, mostly by upgrading US-117 to interstate standards, though a new terrain alignment will be need to be built between US-117 just south of US-13 and NC-581/Ash Street, where the current freeway ends at the traffic light. The NC-581/Ash Street intersection will eventually become a folded diamond interchange.

More information on I-795's extension can be found in this thread if you're interested:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18390.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18390.0)

Recently, it's pretty much been growing outward, other than a few new businesses opening up on Center Street, mostly due to the Streetscape project, which is basically a rebuild of Center Street. A new 20-mile US-70 Bypass running around the north side of Goldsboro opened up 2 months ago, which will eventually become part of I-42, which will follow the US-70 corridor between I-40 near Garner and Morehead City. The city is already taking advantage of the new bypass. They recently held a groundbreaking for the new Maxwell Regional and Agricultural Convention Center, which will be located adjacent to Wayne Community College on Wayne Memorial Drive, just down the road from the US-70 Bypass interchange and the city is also looking for a large hotel to be built near the convention center. I would expect more businesses to open up near the US-70 Bypass interchanges eventually, now that it's planned to become I-42. Goldsboro will be at the crossroads of two interstates once it's all said and done.

Information on the Streetscape project on Center Street can be found here:
http://www.goldsboronc.gov/city-manager/public-affairs-department/streetscape-photos/ (http://www.goldsboronc.gov/city-manager/public-affairs-department/streetscape-photos/)

http://www.goldsboronc.gov/wp-content/uploads/streetscape2014_background.pdf (http://www.goldsboronc.gov/wp-content/uploads/streetscape2014_background.pdf)

There's a thread on I-42 also:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.0)

The only road project in the works in Goldsboro right now (other than Streetscape) is the current widening of US-13/Berkeley Boulevard between Royall Avenue and South Drive, which should be finished sometime in August.
:wow: :wow:
Yeah, things have changed a lot ever since I was last there in 2005. Goldsboro looked like trash back then, such as Center Street looking like something out of a nuclear war.

I think the freeway was US 117 when I was there, or there was no freeway. I-42 is very new news to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 30, 2016, 07:01:20 PM
^^^ You were one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on July 30, 2016, 11:13:15 PM
^^^ You were one.

 :-D :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 31, 2016, 01:54:27 AM
^^^ You were one.
Hmm, not sure how to interpret this. Either you're calling me trash or very new news.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2016, 04:54:21 AM
^^^ You were one.
Hmm, not sure how to interpret this. Either you're calling me trash or very new news.

He's referring to your age in 2005.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 31, 2016, 10:33:52 PM
Went from Morganton to Durham today via da 40.  First time on the highway east of Greensboro in 25 years.  Really hope some serious improvements are planned and soon.  When I entered to return at 15/501 to go west on 40 there was a volume congestion backup well before 15/501 that continued until Haw River.  40 needs widening to 6 lanes from US 601 to the US 64/NC 90 exit and from the NC 16 to Icard exit real bad.  and this was a Sunday.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 01, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
I-40 can be terrible, especially in the summer vacation season. Sadly, I don't think there's a lot of hope for improvements. The road is to be 6-laned between I-85 and US 15/501 in the Triangle area, but that's not scheduled until something like 2023. And I don't know of any plans for widening west of Winston-Salem. Maybe someone can correct me on that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 01, 2016, 05:17:17 PM
I-40 can be terrible, especially in the summer vacation season. Sadly, I don't think there's a lot of hope for improvements. The road is to be 6-laned between I-85 and US 15/501 in the Triangle area, but that's not scheduled until something like 2023. And I don't know of any plans for widening west of Winston-Salem. Maybe someone can correct me on that.


There is a plan to widen I-40 west of Winston Salem, from NC 801 exit to the section where 6 lanes end (at Harper Rd interchange) that will include replacing the Yadkin River Bridges, which should begin in 2018.

This is the link to article from 2015: http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2015/12/09/50m-i-40-road-widening-project-will-move-forward.html


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 01, 2016, 05:40:51 PM
Another mess I encountered yesterday in my travels was 15/501 from the end of the freeway section to I-40.  Waiting 3-4 signal phases on the mainline to get through the intersections.  Are there any plans to grade separate any of the intersections?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 01, 2016, 05:47:31 PM
I-40 can be terrible, especially in the summer vacation season. Sadly, I don't think there's a lot of hope for improvements. The road is to be 6-laned between I-85 and US 15/501 in the Triangle area, but that's not scheduled until something like 2023. And I don't know of any plans for widening west of Winston-Salem. Maybe someone can correct me on that.


There is a plan to widen I-40 west of Winston Salem, from NC 801 exit to the section where 6 lanes end (at Harper Rd interchange) that will include replacing the Yadkin River Bridges, which should begin in 2018.

This is the link to article from 2015: http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2015/12/09/50m-i-40-road-widening-project-will-move-forward.html


Speaking of I-40, there are also plans to widen it from I-440/Future I-87(Exit 301) to current NC 42(Exit 312) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=post2;board=7) moving forward.  (NC 42 is the first interchange EB after US 70/Future I-42 (Clayton Bypass))
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 03, 2016, 09:47:48 AM
Greenville is renewing it's push to have US-264 become an interstate (presumably an I-x87 from Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville).

http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — City leaders in Greenville say the absence of an interstate hampers its efforts to attract new businesses.

“How do we move forward on the interstate designation with 264,”  asked Greenville Mayor Allen Thomas.

It’s a question he’s asked for years. An interstate highway to Greenville wouldn’t necessarily mean you’d have a shorter commute. What it would mean is more business opportunities in eastern North Carolina.

“As most know, I’m a core believer in infrastructure,”  said Thomas. “Your highways, your roads, lighting and how all that fits together is not planned in months. It’s planned in decades. So from day one we’ve pushed very hard for our 264 corridor, pushing to get that for interstate designation.”

Greenville is the 10th largest city in North Carolina, the largest without an interstate.

So what does it take to change that? Unfortunately, it’s much more than putting up a new sign along the highway.

“I would like it to be,”  said Kevin Mulligan, Dir. of Public Works — City of Greenville. “But we’d all like it to be, but it’s not. You get that designation, that shield, that interstate shield. It’s difficult to come by. But there’s a plan in place that we’ve been speaking with our local officials, both in D.C. and in Raleigh to have that happen.”

U.S. 264 from Raleigh to Greenville is a limited access freeway, meaning there are no stop lights. The speed limit is 70 miles an hour, just as you’d see on an interstate like I-95.

But it’s not an interstate. Interstate highways have to meet certain standards.

The good news, it wouldn’t take much to upgrade.

“And we have a road that’s almost built, 98% built to interstate standards so it would be the cheapest interstate in the country to do 30 miles at $30 million,”  explained Mulligan.

Even if the upgrades were made, it’s up to the Federal Highway Administration to make the final call to officially make the stretch of road an interstate.

That’s why Mayor Thomas said he’ll continue to work with state and federal lawmakers to help make that happen, “We make our case that every part of this state needs to thrive for North Carolina thrive.”

There will soon be other interstate routes in the east.

In May the American Association of State and Transportation officials approved I-42 for the U.S. 70 corridor between I-40 and Morehead City, and I-87 for U.S. 64 & 17 between Raleigh and the Virginia state line.

I'm not opposed to it, since the road is already built (much like Kentucky's parkways that are planned to become either I-69 or I-x69's), but if Allen Thomas thinks it will easily pass Congress without scrutiny, he better think again. I-42, I-87 and the extension of I-795 easily passed Congress primarily due to the military presence on those corridors. Greenville has neither a port nor military presence. NCDOT would be better off doing it the old-fashioned way through FHWA. Their chances might be better, IMO.

Not to mention that I-87 will need to be finished to at least Zebulon in order for US-264 to become an I-x87. The best Greenville could hope for at the moment is for US-264 to become "Future I-x87". Has there been a case of a "Future" 3-di without the parent being complete? Wasn't I-269 in MS and TN signed as such? :hmmm:

Theoretically, US-264 could become an I-x95, but I doubt NCDOT would do that since they want northbound traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to connect to I-95 in Rocky Mount, which is why I-495 is signed North-South.

NCDOT would also need to remove the signs on US-264 warning drivers of farm equipment using the highway. Farm equipment are forbidden from using Interstate Highways, IIRC. I think an exception was made for I-555 in Arkansas by Congress.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 03, 2016, 03:04:41 PM
Greenville is renewing it's push to have US-264 become an interstate (presumably an I-x87 from Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville).

http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/)

I'm not opposed to it, since the road is already built (much like Kentucky's parkways that are planned to become either I-69 or I-x69's), but if Allen Thomas thinks it will easily pass Congress without scrutiny, he better think again. I-42, I-87 and the extension of I-795 easily passed Congress primarily due to the military presence on those corridors. Greenville has neither a port nor military presence. NCDOT would be better off doing it the old-fashioned way through FHWA. Their chances might be better, IMO.

Not to mention that I-87 will need to be finished to at least Zebulon in order for US-264 to become an I-x87. The best Greenville could hope for at the moment is for US-264 to become "Future I-x87". Has there been a case of a "Future" 3-di without the parent being complete? Wasn't I-269 in MS and TN signed as such? :hmmm:

Theoretically, US-264 could become an I-x95, but I doubt NCDOT would do that since they want northbound traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to connect to I-95 in Rocky Mount, which is why I-495 is signed North-South.

NCDOT would also need to remove the signs on US-264 warning drivers of farm equipment using the highway. Farm equipment are forbidden from using Interstate Highways, IIRC. I think an exception was made for I-555 in Arkansas by Congress.

These are excellent answers to the mayor's question.

NC politics will probably cause something to happen here, either a request to AASHTO by NCDOT or some kind of Congressional effort. And I wouldn't assume Congress wouldn't cooperate, given some of the interstates it has called for in the past,
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 03, 2016, 03:38:33 PM
Greenville is renewing it's push to have US-264 become an interstate (presumably an I-x87 from Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road in Greenville).

http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/02/what-will-it-take-to-get-greenville-an-interstate/)

I'm not opposed to it, since the road is already built (much like Kentucky's parkways that are planned to become either I-69 or I-x69's), but if Allen Thomas thinks it will easily pass Congress without scrutiny, he better think again. I-42, I-87 and the extension of I-795 easily passed Congress primarily due to the military presence on those corridors. Greenville has neither a port nor military presence. NCDOT would be better off doing it the old-fashioned way through FHWA. Their chances might be better, IMO.

Not to mention that I-87 will need to be finished to at least Zebulon in order for US-264 to become an I-x87. The best Greenville could hope for at the moment is for US-264 to become "Future I-x87". Has there been a case of a "Future" 3-di without the parent being complete? Wasn't I-269 in MS and TN signed as such? :hmmm:

Theoretically, US-264 could become an I-x95, but I doubt NCDOT would do that since they want northbound traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to connect to I-95 in Rocky Mount, which is why I-495 is signed North-South.

NCDOT would also need to remove the signs on US-264 warning drivers of farm equipment using the highway. Farm equipment are forbidden from using Interstate Highways, IIRC. I think an exception was made for I-555 in Arkansas by Congress.

These are excellent answers to the mayor's question.

NC politics will probably cause something to happen here, either a request to AASHTO by NCDOT or some kind of Congressional effort. And I wouldn't assume Congress wouldn't cooperate, given some of the interstates it has called for in the past,

This isn't the first time Greenville tried to get US-264 upgraded. They tried around 2012-2013, and it pissed Kinston off since they didn't understand why Greenville should have an interstate and not them due to being on the heavily traveled US-70 corridor and having the Global TransPark, which has been failing miserably mainly due to a lack of interstate access, so they roped Greenville into agreeing to a "Quad East" interstate project, which took attention away from US-264.

I guess now that Kinston has I-42, Greenville feels that it's safe for another attempt at getting US-264 upgraded without interference from Kinston. I figured Greenville would try again after hearing the news of I-42 and I-87. I guess being a city of a little over 90,000 residents without interstate access while surrounding smaller cities and towns get put "on the map" so-to-speak didn't sit too well with Greenville.

I agree that an interstate upgrade will likely happen eventually for US-264. It would be relatively cheap to upgrade since all it would need is shoulder widening and US-264 already meets interstate standards between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. Surprisingly, Wilson hasn't said anything about it.

I see your point about Congress. If I-99, I-74 and I-14 can get passed, then I reckon anything's possible. :pan:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 03, 2016, 05:32:22 PM
Would they really need Congress to create this interstate? Couldn't they just make the necessary improvements and then petition FHWA and AASHTO to sign it as an interstate?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2016, 05:57:04 PM
If the US 264 corridor does get an Interstate designation, I'd number it Interstate 187. There is no State Highway 187 in North Carolina, so there would be no potential confusion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 03, 2016, 06:12:52 PM
Would they really need Congress to create this interstate? Couldn't they just make the necessary improvements and then petition FHWA and AASHTO to sign it as an interstate?

No, they don't need Congress. My guess is either Greenville is worried that AASHTO and/or FHWA would deny an interstate designation for US-264 or by having US-264 Congressionally designated, it would bump it up in funding and AASHTO/FHWA couldn't deny interstate status for US-264, since it would then be federal law. Perhaps a combination of both.

I don't think there would be much of an issue with going through AASHTO and FHWA. Greenville is certainly large enough to qualify as a termini for an interstate (90,000+ population) and is a (if not THE) major economic hub of eastern NC (besides Wilmington in southeastern NC) and the interstate would also serve Wilson. The worst AASHTO & FHWA could do is say no and if they do, then they could try the Congressional option if they're that determined to turn US-264 into an interstate, which obviously they are.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 03, 2016, 10:53:30 PM
Another old website page moved to the blog - a feature on Charlotte's Independence Blvd I did in 2006 based on photos from Chris Curley.  Close to 50 photos of one of Charlotte's major thoroughfares.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/independence-boulevard-charlottes-first.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2016, 11:13:21 PM
If the US 264 corridor does get an Interstate designation, I'd number it Interstate 187. There is no State Highway 187 in North Carolina, so there would be no potential confusion.
NCDOT has potential 2018-2026 STIP projects to upgrade US 264 to interstate standards from the Wilson County line to the US 264 Greenville Bypass, and to upgrade US 13/NC 11 from the Bypass north to US 64. If the I-x87 were to follow this route, it would need an even number, and since I-87 is a recycled number, I have the perfect choice: I-287, for more info go to:http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/ncfutintp.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/ncfutintp.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 04, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
If the US 264 corridor does get an Interstate designation, I'd number it Interstate 187. There is no State Highway 187 in North Carolina, so there would be no potential confusion.
NCDOT has potential 2018-2026 STIP projects to upgrade US 264 to interstate standards from the Wilson County line to the US 264 Greenville Bypass, and to upgrade US 13/NC 11 from the Bypass north to US 64. If the I-x87 were to follow this route, it would need an even number, and since I-87 is a recycled number, I have the perfect choice: I-287, for more info go to:http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/ncfutintp.html (http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/ncfutintp.html)

That would be one weird looking route, at least for a single interstate designation. I know I'm gonna get flamed on a nuclear level for saying this, but if the Quad East concept is the goal here, I'd use I-287 for US-264 from I-87 in Zebulon to Stantonsburg Road/US-264 Bypass junction in Greenville and I-487 from I-87 near Bethel to I-42 in Kinston, roughly following US-13, the US-264 Greenville northwest bypass, the future Greenville Southwest Bypass, NC-11 and an upgraded CF Harvey Parkway to connect to I-42 in Kinston.

All that being said, Greenville should just focus on the Zebulon-Greenville route for now. I-87 isn't going to reach Bethel for a looong time and the Bethel-Kinston route would take much more work and part of the route between Greenville and Bethel will most likely need a new alignment. North Pitt High School sits right on US-13. I can't see Pitt County being in favor of bulldozing the school.

(Flames incoming in 3...2..1...)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 09, 2016, 01:28:33 PM
Preparations are underway for rebuilding a 1.2-mile section of US-301 in Wilson between Lipscomb Road and Black Creek Road.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/Mapping-project-sets-stage-for-301-work,70920 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/Mapping-project-sets-stage-for-301-work,70920)

Quote
A consultant in Raleigh, Michael Baker International, was hired to survey the project, prepare necessary environmental documents and design the project. To do the latter, crews were in Wilson recently to map and create a model for the project with the help of an SUV equipped with mobile Lidar and cameras.

“The improvements will include curb and gutter, including storm drains,”  Bass said. “It’ll have raised medians, sidewalks, multi-use paths and improvements to intersections such as signal upgrade for pedestrian and vehicular traffic.”  

Late last year, the city was awarded $10 million in a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant. The federal funding has to be leveraged with contributions from the state and the city to redo a 1.2-mile stretch of the old highway from Lipscomb Road to Black Creek Road.

Quote
Bass and Public Works Director Bryant Bunn, who have nearly four decades of experience combined working for the N.C. Department of Transportation, have used their expertise to cross some hurdles, cut through red tape and keep the project moving forward. The consultant work is anticipated to be finished next June, which will pave the way for bidding out the construction.

“Based on DOT’s information, they are talking about putting it for bids in September or October of 2017,”  Bass said. “Construction will start in 2018 at the very earliest.”  

The thoroughfare will not be shuttered for the two-to-three years of construction, but officials said inconvenience and detours might be necessary to do the work efficiently.

“U.S. 301 used to be the north-south connector, but the needs of the roadway have changed,”  Bass said. “It is not really a capacity issue anymore as much as it is a project to get it to fit with the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods.”  

For that reason, officials are hoping to include sidewalks and multi-use lanes along the route and to nearby schools and businesses to improve connectivity of the area. The precise routes, though, will not be announced until crews have designed the specifics of the project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 09, 2016, 06:36:17 PM
Next week NCDOT will close Bragg Boulevard (NC 87) to through traffic where it passes through Fort Bragg. Southbound traffic will instead use NC 210 between Spring Lake and NC 295, and then 295 to return to Bragg Boulevard. (This section of NC 210 has been upgraded to a freeway to support this increase in traffic.)
http://taskandpurpose.com/bragg-boulevard-will-close-permanently-traffic-next-week/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2016, 11:08:39 AM
The Quad East idea in eastern NC is being talked about again.

http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/)

Quote
KINSTON, N.C. (WNCT) — City leaders from all across the east are working together to make sure they’re prepared for anticipated growth.

Part of that is a plan to connect four of the larger metropolitan areas east of Interstate 95.

If their idea comes to fruition, your drive around eastern North Carolina could one day be just like the one around Raleigh, even Washington, D.C.

“It would be such a tremendous economic engine for our communities that I think in a decade or two we wouldn’t know where to put all the people,”  said Kinston mayor BJ Murphy. He’s excited about the future.

Murphy along with other city and county leaders across eastern North Carolina are working on a plan called Quad-East.

Greenville mayor Allen Thomas spearheaded the concept two years ago.

“All working together, have formed an initiative called Quad-East,”  said Greenville mayor Allen Thomas. “And what that means is how do we connect military, academic, medical and major manufacturing in this region together?’

The goal of Quad-East is to form an interstate quality loop from Greenville, Wilson, Goldsboro, Kinston and back to Greenville.

“Not only moves goods and services but helps increase the economic activity in these areas based on the uniqueness of each of the communities we’re talking about,”  explained Murphy. “Goldsboro’s got a base. Greenville’s got Vidant and East Carolina. But Kinston’s got the Global Transpark. And tying all these pieces together.”

Part of that’s already done; I-795 connects Wilson and Goldsboro. US 70 between Goldsboro and Kinston is in the process of being upgraded to I-42.

Another part of the proposed loop is the Felix Harvey Parkway north of Kinston. Last month, DOT officials announced the parkway will extend from NC 58 to NC 11.

“The northern option for the Harvey Parkway extension from the Global Transpark to Highway 11,”  said Murphy. “Just a few upgrades to Highway 11, maybe a few upgrades to Highway 70 and, folks, we’ve got us a controlled access freeway system here in eastern North Carolina.”

And in Pitt County, the NC 11 southwestern bypass construction just got underway, which is another key piece of the Quad-East puzzle.

Bringing it all together means working with other cities and counties and having a common goal. For these two mayors, that’s a win-win situation.

“We have to fit together as a region if we’re going to be able to recruit industry and to be able to bring opportunity here,”  said Thomas. “It’s the eastern part of North Carolina. It’s not just one city. We’re all in this thing together.”

“It’s really important for rural eastern North Carolina to all be on the same page when it comes to transportation and economic development. And Quad-East is the epitome of what that cooperation could look like,”  said Murphy.

The last leg of the Quad-East loop is NC 11 between the Harvey Parkway in Lenoir County and the southwestern bypass in Pitt County. As of now, there are no immediate plans to upgrade that stretch of road to interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2016, 07:32:54 PM
I just found this article. It's from 3 weeks ago, but still an interesting read. Try to keep a straight face when reading. I tried. I failed.

http://wnct.com/2016/07/19/pitt-co-commissioners-say-state-is-ignoring-eastern-nc-transportation-needs/ (http://wnct.com/2016/07/19/pitt-co-commissioners-say-state-is-ignoring-eastern-nc-transportation-needs/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — Pitt County Commissioners say eastern North Carolina isn’t getting enough funding for transportation improvements from the state legislature, and now they’re taking action.

The Board of Commissioners passed a resolution Monday asking the General Assembly to take another look at how it funds transportation projects.

Highway 264 is just one area commissioners say needs some help. They say even just adding signs that say future interstate would do a lot for the economy.

Commissioners aren’t happy with the formula the Department of Transportation currently uses to allocate funding, factoring in things like congestion and population. They want it to change.

Commissioner Tom Coulson says more rural areas, even Pitt County, are often ignored.

“What we’re really trying to do is get collectively other counties that don’t have a lot of say… Pretty soon, if we could get everybody to join in, we’d have 75-80 counties that would be saying to the legislature, don’t forget about us too,”  Coulson said.

A similar resolution has already been adopted by the Martin County Commissioners. Coulson hopes other counties in eastern and western North Carolina will follow.

Commissioner Coulson says more funding would bring more industry to the East.

“To get on 95, you’ve got to go all the way over to Wilson, either that or you have to go through back roads to get to Rocky Mount, or there are other ways you can get there but it’s not real easy. It would help eastern North Carolina, the entire eastern North Carolina, not just any individual county,”  Coulson said.

Commissioner Coulson says the Connect NC bond initially looked promising for transportation in the East, but won’t actually help nearly as much as expected.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 10, 2016, 08:53:49 PM
So this Coulson fellow wants NCDOT to ignore traffic data and channel funds to rural areas just because he feels ignored (shades of the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction")?  He's got a perfectly good 60+ miles of US 264 freeway to get to Wilson and beyond; all he & his buddies have to do is slide up US 13 a few miles to access US 64 if he needs to get to Rocky Mount that badly.  Something tells me that Greenville folks are simply envious of the neighboring areas to be served by I-87 and I-42, and merely want in on the action.  Considering the sense of entitlement shown here, I wouldn't put it past them to suggest a 2di for US 264 (I-46, anyone?).  In this respect, Greenville interests are acting like they're the Owensboro of North Carolina! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2016, 09:48:28 PM
So this Coulson fellow wants NCDOT to ignore traffic data and channel funds to rural areas just because he feels ignored (shades of the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction")?  He's got a perfectly good 60+ miles of US 264 freeway to get to Wilson and beyond; all he & his buddies have to do is slide up US 13 a few miles to access US 64 if he needs to get to Rocky Mount that badly.  Something tells me that Greenville folks are simply envious of the neighboring areas to be served by I-87 and I-42, and merely want in on the action.  Considering the sense of entitlement shown here, I wouldn't put it past them to suggest a 2di for US 264 (I-46, anyone?).  In this respect, Greenville interests are acting like they're the Owensboro of North Carolina!

What's even more comical is that Coulson wants "Future Interstate" signs on US-264 despite the fact that I-87 doesn't even reach Zebulon yet! :banghead: Not to mention that I-87 has yet to replace I-495 (though I expect that will change during AASHTO's meeting in November). Coulson is just making the area look bad by running his mouth like this. Eastern NC just gained 2 future interstates (I-42, I-87) and a future extension of an existing one (I-795). The Goldsboro Bypass recently opened, the Greenville Southwest Bypass just begun and there are other projects in eastern NC either in the planning stages or under construction. I guess he expects everything to happen overnight.

That being said, Greenville has wanted US-264 upgraded long before the state announced their intention to have US-70 and US-64/US-17 become interstates, in which case it would've became an I-x95. Greenville didn't care about connecting to Kinston. When Kinston caught wind that Greenville was trying to get US-264 upgraded, they got pissed off since they were worried it would take attention away from US-70, which was planned to become a freeway without an interstate designation at the time. So, they came up with the Quad East idea and pitched it to Greenville. Greenville reluctantly went along with Quad East when they realized it was the only way they could get surrounding cities and counties to support upgrading US-264. So, if you want to know where the Quad East idea came from, look no further than Kinston.

Coulson is just coming off as an ungrateful prick, IMO. I'm not against upgrading US-264 (though as far as eastern NC projects goes, I'd rather see more of US-70 upgraded), but this isn't the way to go about it. I wouldn't necessarily blame the entire city of Greenville for this guy's comments. Years ago, I could sympathize with him. I'm having a hard time doing so now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on August 10, 2016, 10:28:09 PM
The red, white, and blue shield is getting a lot of North Carolina cities up in arms, isn't it?  :hmmm:

After much thought about the new North Carolina interstate locations, I believe I-42 is legitimately needed because of the US 70 corridor going to the Port of Morehead City.  I-87, as planned, is not really needed.  This could just remain as US 64 and US 17.  Michigan has US numbered freeways throughout the state (23, part of 31, 127, and 131) and Ohio has a US 35 freeway and an OH 11 freeway that doesn't need an I-shield. 

I realize the I-shield, when posted, is supposed to "improve" business and commerce in those particular areas--which is what Greenville, Kinston, Goldsboro, and Wilson are striving for.  As of now, Goldsboro and Wilson have Interstate connctions and Kinston is slated to have one--which leaves Greenville without one for the time being.  This is the sole reason for their ranting and raving.  As a Kentucky resident looking on the outside of this, you can say that Greenvile is acting like Owensboro.

As a former truck driver, I am familiar with the areas discussed here.  I have driven on the US 64 freeway from Raleigh to Williamston and have seen the US 264 freeway built in stages from Wilson to Greenville.  Since US 264 has gone through this area for more than 70+ years, I see nothing wrong with keeping this freeway as US 264.  US 264 has been the way from Raleigh to Greenville for the past 20 years.  Adding I-shields along this route would add another number (as in I-87, I-x87) to the corridor instead of having just the one number for the corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 10, 2016, 11:24:09 PM
Wow, Greenville. They will probably get a I-x87 spur, but the talks about Quad East beltway..  :banghead:

I don't mind having I-73, I-74 (meh), and I-42 around, but I agree with the above post that I-87 is not really needed. I just hope we don't get too many interstates, however it seems like we are headed for that. (oh boy). Which state has too many interstates? California? Texas? New York City area?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 11, 2016, 03:14:48 AM
IMO, the die was cast for the I-87 corridor back in 1991, when HPC #13 was part of the first batch of ISTEA corridors to be established.  Another piece of the puzzle was added six years later, when the construction-trade publication "Roads & Bridges" touted a Hampton Roads-centered corridor going up the Delmarva to I-95 in northern Delaware and then south along HPC-13 to Raleigh (they referred to it as "I-101" at the time).  It's pretty much been on the interest-group radar ever since (and we roadgeeks haven't done much to dispel the concept except to bitch about the choice of numbers!).  And those interest groups, especially NC-based ones, seem to have as of late displayed more than enough clout with NCDOT to sway them to "join the party", so to speak.

But eventually there will be that camelback-breaking "last straw" -- or a proverbial bridge too far -- where one party or another will realize that available resources are being stretched past practical limits.   Whether that's promoting the "Quad East" concept or simply pushing for enhancement of US 264 is yet to be seen.  This part of NC is already getting more than their share of road projects, Interstate or otherwise; it might be wise for their local political actors to refrain from "poking the bear" for even more!

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 11, 2016, 09:28:31 AM
Wow, Greenville. They will probably get a I-x87 spur, but the talks about Quad East beltway..  :banghead:

I don't have a problem with US-264 becoming an I-x87 between Zebulon and Greenville in the future, but it's laughable that the Pitt County Commissioners think that upgrading US-264 is such an urgent need, which it isn't.

US-70, on the other hand, definitely needs upgraded. It carries a lot more traffic than US-264 and the non-freeway sections that haven't been either bypassed or upgraded yet have serious safety issues. Pitt County is just embarrassing themselves at this point and making the area look bad.

However, remember what I posted earlier. Kinston was the one who originally came up with the Quad East idea back in 2013 when they got pissed after hearing that Greenville was trying to get US-264 upgraded since Kinston was (rightfully) worried that it would take attention away from US-70. I think Kinston went a bit overboard with the Quad East idea, but I couldn't blame them for feeling like they had the carpet yanked from under them. Ironically, Greenville felt the same way about Kinston and US-264.

In short, the Quad East idea is basically a "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" kind of deal. Funny thing is, to my knowledge, neither Wayne nor Wilson counties and their cities have said anything about it, which tells you something.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on August 11, 2016, 07:03:14 PM
So is I-495 simply a placeholder now for I-87? I wonder if they can just replace I-495 to prevent redundancy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 11, 2016, 07:28:48 PM
So is I-495 simply a placeholder now for I-87? I wonder if they can just replace I-495 to prevent redundancy.

Yes, and NCDOT intends to decommission I-495. They haven't said specifically when they will do it, but I think it's a safe bet they will send applications to AASHTO in time for their meeting in November to decommission I-495/Future I-495 and at the same time ask that I-87 take over I-495's place. FHWA will still have to give final approval, but I don't expect any problems.

AASHTO's deadline for accepting applications for their November meeting is September 16.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on August 11, 2016, 09:25:42 PM
So when are we going to see I-89 going from Williamston to Wilmington? HA!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 11, 2016, 09:28:59 PM
So is I-495 simply a placeholder now for I-87? I wonder if they can just replace I-495 to prevent redundancy.

It is now a placeholder - but when first proposed it wasn't.  495 will stick around til first of the year at least maybe December.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 12, 2016, 04:49:51 PM
If Interstate 87 makes it to the Norfolk area, is it possible that the existing exit numbers in North Carolina may be changed from using US 64's mileage to Interstate 87 mileage? And could such a conversion eventually be in store for future Interstate 42?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 12, 2016, 05:30:24 PM
If Interstate 87 makes it to the Norfolk area, is it possible that the existing exit numbers in North Carolina may be changed from using US 64's mileage to Interstate 87 mileage? And could such a conversion eventually be in store for future Interstate 42?

The answer is yes, the mile markers and exit numbers will change to I-87/I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 13, 2016, 01:41:49 PM
If Interstate 87 makes it to the Norfolk area, is it possible that the existing exit numbers in North Carolina may be changed from using US 64's mileage to Interstate 87 mileage? And could such a conversion eventually be in store for future Interstate 42?

The answer is yes, the mile markers and exit numbers will change to I-87/I-42.
Though it will be interesting to see when this will occur. Recent NCDOT practices are not helpful in figuring this out. They may decide to switch exit numbers early on, even on sections that are not upgraded, like they have on US 74 for the future segments of I-74, east of I-95, or they may leave existing numbers in place and not choose to change them presumably until the route is connected to a new segment, such as with Future I-74 along the Rockingham Bypass or US 52 west/north of Winston-Salem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 13, 2016, 03:20:37 PM
If Interstate 87 makes it to the Norfolk area, is it possible that the existing exit numbers in North Carolina may be changed from using US 64's mileage to Interstate 87 mileage? And could such a conversion eventually be in store for future Interstate 42?

The answer is yes, the mile markers and exit numbers will change to I-87/I-42.
Though it will be interesting to see when this will occur. Recent NCDOT practices are not helpful in figuring this out. They may decide to switch exit numbers early on, even on sections that are not upgraded, like they have on US 74 for the future segments of I-74, east of I-95, or they may leave existing numbers in place and not choose to change them presumably until the route is connected to a new segment, such as with Future I-74 along the Rockingham Bypass or US 52 west/north of Winston-Salem.

Or worst case scenario, they could just leave it as-is even after I-42 and I-87 is complete, like they did with the I-795/US-264 concurrency in Wilson. :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 13, 2016, 05:52:14 PM
If Interstate 87 makes it to the Norfolk area, is it possible that the existing exit numbers in North Carolina may be changed from using US 64's mileage to Interstate 87 mileage? And could such a conversion eventually be in store for future Interstate 42?

The answer is yes, the mile markers and exit numbers will change to I-87/I-42.
Though it will be interesting to see when this will occur. Recent NCDOT practices are not helpful in figuring this out. They may decide to switch exit numbers early on, even on sections that are not upgraded, like they have on US 74 for the future segments of I-74, east of I-95, or they may leave existing numbers in place and not choose to change them presumably until the route is connected to a new segment, such as with Future I-74 along the Rockingham Bypass or US 52 west/north of Winston-Salem.

Or worst case scenario, they could just leave it as-is even after I-42 and I-87 is complete, like they did with the I-795/US-264 concurrency in Wilson. :pan:

Worst case scenario is unlikely.  While there are several examples of three-digit interstates using US Highway mileage instead of their own (see I-585 Spartanburg), there isn't an example I'm aware of of a two-digit doing that.  Also, we have seen NCDOT update the mileage along I-73 once that entire section south of Greensboro was signed; while the Greensboro section was converted first, the Asheboro section wasn't done until the entire stretch between Greensboro to Ellerbe was completed.

So it is either piecemeal updates or wait till a long stretch is completed, we have examples of NCDOT doing both.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 13, 2016, 06:50:50 PM
Worst case scenario is unlikely.  While there are several examples of three-digit interstates using US Highway mileage instead of their own (see I-585 Spartanburg), there isn't an example I'm aware of of a two-digit doing that.
I-39 Wisconsin?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on August 13, 2016, 10:36:24 PM
Although I drive this stretch of US 17 almost weekly, I just noticed that the exit # on 17 south on the Neuse River Bridge for the exit that takes you to either us 70 east or downtown New Bern is exit 417.  That cannot be using 17's mileage.  It must be for 70.. Why though?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on August 13, 2016, 11:04:57 PM
Although I drive this stretch of US 17 almost weekly, I just noticed that the exit # on 17 south on the Neuse River Bridge for the exit that takes you to either us 70 east or downtown New Bern is exit 417.  That cannot be using 17's mileage.  It must be for 70.. Why though?

It is US-70's mileage. To this day, I am not sure why they did that southbound on US-17, the bridge has been US-17 since the day it opened in September 1999. I seem to remember some talk that it would be easier for us in the public safety community to keep track of incidents that way, but it really hasn't. For every 911 call that comes in about a wreck at the "417 exit" we have to spend at least 30 seconds or more nailing down which of the 3 exits with that designation the wreck is near-and it makes a huge difference as to which fire dept and ambulance we send to it.

Add to that the fact that almost no one who calls these in knows which route they are on, which bridge they are on, or what cardinal direction they are travelling, well, you can see why it is so maddening! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on August 14, 2016, 06:45:28 AM
Won't that change anyway when the US 17 bypass is completed west of New Bern?  Yeah, that exit 417 sign (not to mention the huge lettering that was present there in 2011) got my attention when I was driving from Williamston to New Bern on US 17.  Weird logic...only  thing I can think of is that the US 17 highway merges onto US 70, but even then I've never seen something like that
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 14, 2016, 11:03:30 PM
Moved and updated the History of the Interstate 40 Extension page to the blog.  The large update and refresh to the original text details the timeline of construction of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington.  The decision to build 40 along US 117 vs. the seemingly odds on favorite of US 421.  And also the political funding battles in both Washington and Raleigh in the 1980s.

I'll admit I miss doing pages like this.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on August 15, 2016, 10:25:29 AM
Moved and updated the History of the Interstate 40 Extension page to the blog.  The large update and refresh to the original text details the timeline of construction of I-40 from Raleigh to Wilmington.  The decision to build 40 along US 117 vs. the seemingly odds on favorite of US 421.  And also the political funding battles in both Washington and Raleigh in the 1980s.

I'll admit I miss doing pages like this.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html

And I admit to missing reading them!

This page that you have recreated here is one that I have quoted many times over the years both in verbal discussions with friends and online.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 17, 2016, 10:41:32 AM
Update on the US-17 widening project.

http://wnct.com/2016/08/16/highway-17-project-to-completely-bypass-pollocksville-maysville/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/16/highway-17-project-to-completely-bypass-pollocksville-maysville/)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE,  N.C. (WNCT) — As the east grows, more and more cars travel the roads every day.

For some in Jones County, that means heavy traffic right down main street in their once sleepy towns.

As a waitress, Christine Phillips sees plenty of traffic in and out of Trent Family Restaurant in Pollocksville getting a bite to eat. And there’s lots of traffic outside the restaurant, too.

According to NCDOT, 10,600 cars a day travel the stretch of US 17 between Jacksonville and New Bern. That includes going right through the heart of small towns like Pollocksville and Maysville.

A project is underway to take a lot of that traffic out of those towns.

“Sixteen miles, 25 bridges,”  explained Brad McMannen, NCDOT resident engineer. “And speed limits will range from 60 miles an hour to 70 miles an hour.”

It’s a $143-million project that’ll upgrade that stretch of US 17 to four lanes, completely bypassing Maysville and Pollocksville.

“Construction started in October of last year,”  said McMannen. “[The] Contractor is currently building roadway, kind of in two sections. One section is between Belgrade and Maysville on new alignment. And the other section everybody can see is between, just north of Maysville on the existing 17.”

But not only will the finished product ease traffic in those Jones County towns, it will also make a safer drive for everyone along that section of Highway 17.

“A lot of that section is just two lanes with the double yellow lines in the median,”  explained McMannen. “Basically with the high speeds, the amount of traffic, it’s very dangerous. [There’s} A lot of head on collisions. The biggest part is putting four lanes and getting that divided median, separating the two directions of traffic.”

The work isn’t expected to be done until 2020. And Christine can’t wait to see how it affects her daily commute from Swansboro.

“I hope [it will be] better,”  said Christine Phillips, Trent Family Restaurant waitress. “I won’t be behind somebody that don’t move. Because I won’t pass. So hopefully it will be better for me.”

Less traffic through small towns and a safer drive both sound like good things. But some in Pollocksville and Maysville are concerned about the effect the bypass will have on business in their towns.

9 On Your Side will take a closer look Tuesday on Growing The East.

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and guess that the new alignment will be a 70mph freeway while the upgraded sections will be 60-65mph.

Roadgeek moment: In the vid thumbnail, notice the interstate shield being used as a background for "Growing the East". :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on August 17, 2016, 11:08:09 AM
Update on the US-17 widening project.

http://wnct.com/2016/08/16/highway-17-project-to-completely-bypass-pollocksville-maysville/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/16/highway-17-project-to-completely-bypass-pollocksville-maysville/)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE,  N.C. (WNCT) – As the east grows, more and more cars travel the roads every day.

For some in Jones County, that means heavy traffic right down main street in their once sleepy towns.

As a waitress, Christine Phillips sees plenty of traffic in and out of Trent Family Restaurant in Pollocksville getting a bite to eat. And there’s lots of traffic outside the restaurant, too.

According to NCDOT, 10,600 cars a day travel the stretch of US 17 between Jacksonville and New Bern. That includes going right through the heart of small towns like Pollocksville and Maysville.

A project is underway to take a lot of that traffic out of those towns.

“Sixteen miles, 25 bridges,” explained Brad McMannen, NCDOT resident engineer. “And speed limits will range from 60 miles an hour to 70 miles an hour.”

It’s a $143-million project that’ll upgrade that stretch of US 17 to four lanes, completely bypassing Maysville and Pollocksville.

“Construction started in October of last year,” said McMannen. “[The] Contractor is currently building roadway, kind of in two sections. One section is between Belgrade and Maysville on new alignment. And the other section everybody can see is between, just north of Maysville on the existing 17.”

But not only will the finished product ease traffic in those Jones County towns, it will also make a safer drive for everyone along that section of Highway 17.

“A lot of that section is just two lanes with the double yellow lines in the median,” explained McMannen. “Basically with the high speeds, the amount of traffic, it’s very dangerous. [There’s} A lot of head on collisions. The biggest part is putting four lanes and getting that divided median, separating the two directions of traffic.”

The work isn’t expected to be done until 2020. And Christine can’t wait to see how it affects her daily commute from Swansboro.

“I hope [it will be] better,” said Christine Phillips, Trent Family Restaurant waitress. “I won’t be behind somebody that don’t move. Because I won’t pass. So hopefully it will be better for me.”

Less traffic through small towns and a safer drive both sound like good things. But some in Pollocksville and Maysville are concerned about the effect the bypass will have on business in their towns.

9 On Your Side will take a closer look Tuesday on Growing The East.

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and guess that the new alignment will be a 70mph freeway while the upgraded sections will be 60-65mph.

Roadgeek moment: In the vid thumbnail, notice the interstate shield being used as a background for "Growing the East". :sombrero:


This earlier story on WCTI's website explains the basic layout:


Quote
In a press release, it's state that once completed, the U.S. 17 widening projects will yield significant safety improvements by bringing the corridor up to modern standards, providing motorists with a four-lane divided highway with speed limits of 70 mph from the U.S 17 New Bern Bypass to just south of N.C. 58, and a speed limit of 60 mph from just south of N.C. 58 to Deppe Loop Road in Maysville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on August 17, 2016, 11:25:54 AM
I did a little digging.

Here is a pretty detailed description of the whole US-17 project in Onslow and Jones Counties:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ihWnHlGl-0YJ:https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/EnvironmentalDocs/Documents/R-2514/R2514_SROD.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on August 17, 2016, 06:15:57 PM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 17, 2016, 06:50:43 PM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.
I'm happy to see the obsolete 2-lane segments of US 17 upgraded, but I'm also a Triangle resident sympathetic to your comments. We have urgently needed projects, such as widening I-40 between 440 and the future I-42, and widening 440 between Wade Avenue and I-40/US 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 11:30:48 AM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.
I'm happy to see the obsolete 2-lane segments of US 17 upgraded, but I'm also a Triangle resident sympathetic to your comments. We have urgently needed projects, such as widening I-40 between 440 and the future I-42, and widening 440 between Wade Avenue and I-40/US 64.

Speaking as someone who's from eastern NC, I have to agree. However, I would like to see the new alignment part of I-795's extension get built, which would run from Ash Street in Goldsboro to US-117 south of the Wayne County Fairgrounds near US-13. Once the US-117/Oberry Road interchange is complete and the new alignment part gets built, there won't be any traffic lights between existing I-795 in Goldsboro and I-40 near Faison. The rest of US-117 between Mar-Mac and I-40 can easily wait to be upgraded.

I'm not saying I-795's extension is more important than projects in the Triangle or Charlotte, but I don't think it would be a wasteful eastern NC project IMO.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on August 18, 2016, 01:31:21 PM
Well, I see we are back to our old Charlotte/Triangle versus rural NC selves again. I was starting to worry that the whole state was getting together too well as of late. I am relieved things havent changed all that much.

Some of the Triangles woes I have sympathy for. Charlotte, on the other hand, I can't. Not when I when I flip open my Rand McNally and see the sea of blue roads in and around it. Hopefully the city dwellers will start taking advantage of some of the public transportation projects that are under way there and road traffic will lessen some.

Now, I will agree, not everything built out this way absolutely needs to be freeway, but I'm not complaining that they are getting built. Towns are pretty far apart and it gets to be a real pita getting stuck behind a farm tractor that refuses to pull off the road for miles on end, with no way to get around it because there is a non-stop line of traffic coming in the other direction.

I'd be perfectly happy with just expressways as long as they bumped the speed limit up to 60-65 on them, but I'm not gonna be-atch about 70 mph freeways either.

Its nice that we are finally getting our due after 60 years of Charlotte hogging all the transportation money.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 18, 2016, 03:47:22 PM
Does anyone know when the US 52 corridor will finally become Interstate 285? Or when portions of the Winston-Salem Beltway will be built?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on August 18, 2016, 05:57:11 PM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.

Could it possibly be to mollify Eastern NC due to the state's refusal to widen I-95 without tolls?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 06:09:00 PM
Well, I see we are back to our old Charlotte/Triangle versus rural NC selves again. I was starting to worry that the whole state was getting together too well as of late. I am relieved things havent changed all that much.

I was sweating bullets. :-D However, I'd count my blessings if I were you. After being in Virginia for the last 7 years, I can say firsthand that the urban/rural divide is much worse here than it is in NC.

Quote
Now, I will agree, not everything built out this way absolutely needs to be freeway, but I'm not complaining that they are getting built. Towns are pretty far apart and it gets to be a real pita getting stuck behind a farm tractor that refuses to pull off the road for miles on end, with no way to get around it because there is a non-stop line of traffic coming in the other direction.

I'd be perfectly happy with just expressways as long as they bumped the speed limit up to 60-65 on them, but I'm not gonna be-atch about 70 mph freeways either.

I feel the same way. Hell, I remember living in Fremont and commuting on US-117 to Wilson and Goldsboro before I-795 was built. It sucked, to put it mildly. I-795 was practically a godsend for Wayne County.

The Pitt County Board of Commissioners has been kicking and screaming lately about having US-264 upgraded to an interstate from Greenville to Zebulon, which would most likely become an I-x87 if it comes to fruition. I'm not opposed to that, but they act like it's an extreme emergency. The highway is already a 70mph freeway. Plus, there's the Quad East interstate system proposal that Kinston and Greenville are heavily pushing. I'm not entirely sold on the idea and don't think an interstate from Kinston to Greenville (they'll likely want it extended to connect to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel, which will lead to Hampton Roads) is absolutely necessary, but I can understand their reasoning.

ICYMI:
http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/09/how-quad-east-could-connect-four-of-eastern-carolinas-metro-areas/)

http://wnct.com/2016/07/19/pitt-co-commissioners-say-state-is-ignoring-eastern-nc-transportation-needs/ (http://wnct.com/2016/07/19/pitt-co-commissioners-say-state-is-ignoring-eastern-nc-transportation-needs/)

US-70, US-17 and the new alignment section of I-795's extension are more of a priority regarding eastern NC projects than US-264 and Quad East, IMO. Pitt County needs to have a seat and take a chill pill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2016, 06:28:14 PM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.

Could it possibly be to mollify Eastern NC due to the state's refusal to widen I-95 without tolls?

Actually, the state mollified eastern NC by not tolling I-95. Tolls were proposed a few years ago, but the cities/towns and businesses had a shit fit since they were worried that tolls would have a negative impact on businesses and the towns were worried about a significant increase in traffic (mainly trucks), since US-301 would've became a shunpike route. Talk of tolling I-95 soon ended.

http://www.wral.com/nc-dot-hears-from-public-on-i-95-expansion-tolls/12438592/ (http://www.wral.com/nc-dot-hears-from-public-on-i-95-expansion-tolls/12438592/)

However, there's this allegation made by Robert Brawley back in February, who was a GOP primary challenger to Gov. Pat McCrory, about what's in store for all interstates in NC.

http://abc11.com/traffic/could-nc-begin-tolling-on-every-interstate-corridor-/1189123/ (http://abc11.com/traffic/could-nc-begin-tolling-on-every-interstate-corridor-/1189123/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 18, 2016, 11:01:01 PM
Quote from: slorydn1
Its nice that we are finally getting our due after 60 years of Charlotte hogging all the transportation money.

If this were really the case, you'd still be driving Broad St across the river...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on August 19, 2016, 07:46:42 AM
Aside from I-42 I find most of this rural freeway building in Eastern NC to be silly and a massive waste of funds. Honestly things like I87 or the quad east loop shouldn't even be built in our lifetimes when NC has subpar freeways in areas like Charlotte and the Triangle where people actually use them. US 64 and 264 already have low traffic counts as it is. Guess it shows how much political power the rural areas still wield in this state. While I do love seeing new highways get built it just doesn't make sense to build all these roads to nowhere when you seem to not be able to find funding to address pressing issues in your largest cities.

Could it possibly be to mollify Eastern NC due to the state's refusal to widen I-95 without tolls?

Actually, the state mollified eastern NC by not tolling I-95. Tolls were proposed a few years ago, but the cities/towns and businesses had a shit fit since they were worried that tolls would have a negative impact on businesses and the towns were worried about a significant increase in traffic (mainly trucks), since US-301 would've became a shunpike route. Talk of tolling I-95 soon ended.

http://www.wral.com/nc-dot-hears-from-public-on-i-95-expansion-tolls/12438592/ (http://www.wral.com/nc-dot-hears-from-public-on-i-95-expansion-tolls/12438592/)

However, there's this allegation made by Robert Brawley back in February, who was a GOP primary challenger to Gov. Pat McCrory, about what's in store for all interstates in NC.

http://abc11.com/traffic/could-nc-begin-tolling-on-every-interstate-corridor-/1189123/ (http://abc11.com/traffic/could-nc-begin-tolling-on-every-interstate-corridor-/1189123/)

Um...that's what I said. Read it again.

I knew it was suckage when I first saw the proposal, the fact that the state still refuses to do so is a travesty IMHO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2016, 08:23:34 AM
Whoops. That's what I get for posting while half asleep. :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on August 19, 2016, 11:20:20 AM
Whoops. That's what I get for posting while half asleep. :banghead:

Someone get this man coffee stat! :-D :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2016, 11:43:44 AM
Whoops. That's what I get for posting while half asleep. :banghead:

Someone get this man coffee stat! :-D :sombrero:

Folgers. Medium roast. Hold the creamer. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on August 19, 2016, 07:05:48 PM
Well, I see we are back to our old Charlotte/Triangle versus rural NC selves again. I was starting to worry that the whole state was getting together too well as of late. I am relieved things havent changed all that much.

Some of the Triangles woes I have sympathy for. Charlotte, on the other hand, I can't. Not when I when I flip open my Rand McNally and see the sea of blue roads in and around it. Hopefully the city dwellers will start taking advantage of some of the public transportation projects that are under way there and road traffic will lessen some.

Now, I will agree, not everything built out this way absolutely needs to be freeway, but I'm not complaining that they are getting built. Towns are pretty far apart and it gets to be a real pita getting stuck behind a farm tractor that refuses to pull off the road for miles on end, with no way to get around it because there is a non-stop line of traffic coming in the other direction.

I'd be perfectly happy with just expressways as long as they bumped the speed limit up to 60-65 on them, but I'm not gonna be-atch about 70 mph freeways either.

Its nice that we are finally getting our due after 60 years of Charlotte hogging all the transportation money.

This is such a ridiculous comment. Have you ever been to Charlotte? Or even driven on most of our highways? Or even know the history around our road projects? Or even realize that Mecklenburg County by itself has more people living in it, than the vast majorities of the counties that make up east NC?

If Charlotte was "hogging all the transportation money" for the past 60 years, then I-485 would have been completed a decade ago, Independence Blvd wouldn't take nearly half a century to rebuild, US 74 outside of Mecklenburg would have been a freeway/Interstate decades ago, and I-77 and the non-Mecklenburg parts of I-85 in the metro would have been widened and modernized years ago.

And there's more to the quantity and quality of a city's road network, than looking at a Rand McNally map. It doesn't account for that fact that many of these roads are outdated, and need widening, widener shoulders, and better interchanges.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2016, 08:31:33 PM
:poke:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2016, 09:01:17 PM
Does anyone know when the US 52 corridor will finally become Interstate 285? Or when portions of the Winston-Salem Beltway will be built?

Good question. The US-52 upgrade should've been done by now, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what the hold up is.

As for the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, construction of the first segment got underway recently.

http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/through-mud-or-dust-work-on-winston-salem-beltway-advances/article_dfb60fcd-ba92-5d4c-bf03-56292ddd487f.html?mode=jqm (http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/through-mud-or-dust-work-on-winston-salem-beltway-advances/article_dfb60fcd-ba92-5d4c-bf03-56292ddd487f.html?mode=jqm)

Quote
The first beltway segment runs from Business 40 to Reidsville Road near Walkertown. Dragados USA is building the 4-mile segment at a cost of $154 million, with completion scheduled by the end of 2018.

Quote
With the construction of future segments, the eastern leg of the Northern Beltway will become a part of Interstate 74 and connect on its south end to the existing I-74/U.S. 311 between Winston-Salem and High Point.

North of Reidsville Road, the beltway will link to the U.S. 52/future I-74 corridor between Winston-Salem and Mount Airy.

Quote
The next segment of the beltway up for construction will stretch to Reidsville Road.

Pat Ivey, the division engineer for the N.C. Department of Transportation in Forsyth County, said work on that segment should start in October 2017, before the first segment is complete.

“We have tried to time it to where there will be some continuous construction on the beltway from now until 2022, when the final projects are awarded,”  Ivey said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 19, 2016, 10:03:42 PM
Now that I have driven by the construction in person, I can't see how this alignment will connect into the existing partially built I-40/I-74/Us 311 interchange, and if is not where it is to go, it looks like the 40/74 interchange was way over designed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 19, 2016, 10:10:31 PM
Now that I have driven by the construction in person, I can't see how this alignment will connect into the existing partially built I-40/I-74/Us 311 interchange, and if is not where it is to go, it looks like the 40/74 interchange was way over designed.

The US 311/I-40 interchange is not changing, I-74 will split-off before that and have its own interchange with I-40, east of other interchange.  The US 311 interchange will one day (some day) have a connector continuing to Waughtown Street.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 19, 2016, 10:54:27 PM
Does anyone know when the US 52 corridor will finally become Interstate 285? Or when portions of the Winston-Salem Beltway will be built?

Good question. The US-52 upgrade should've been done by now, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what the hold up is.

As for the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, construction of the first segment got underway recently.

http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/through-mud-or-dust-work-on-winston-salem-beltway-advances/article_dfb60fcd-ba92-5d4c-bf03-56292ddd487f.html?mode=jqm (http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/through-mud-or-dust-work-on-winston-salem-beltway-advances/article_dfb60fcd-ba92-5d4c-bf03-56292ddd487f.html?mode=jqm)

Quote
The first beltway segment runs from Business 40 to Reidsville Road near Walkertown. Dragados USA is building the 4-mile segment at a cost of $154 million, with completion scheduled by the end of 2018.

Quote
With the construction of future segments, the eastern leg of the Northern Beltway will become a part of Interstate 74 and connect on its south end to the existing I-74/U.S. 311 between Winston-Salem and High Point.

North of Reidsville Road, the beltway will link to the U.S. 52/future I-74 corridor between Winston-Salem and Mount Airy.

Quote
The next segment of the beltway up for construction will stretch to Reidsville Road.

Pat Ivey, the division engineer for the N.C. Department of Transportation in Forsyth County, said work on that segment should start in October 2017, before the first segment is complete.

“We have tried to time it to where there will be some continuous construction on the beltway from now until 2022, when the final projects are awarded,”  Ivey said.
Good news for that section of I-74. After the Reidsville Road segment, they are supposed to build the sections to the east back to US 311.
As for I-285, there is still one segment of US 52 just south of I-40 that needs upgrading before it can be signed an interstate. At last check, this project did not make the STIP due to a low project score. This means, unless something changes, that there will not be any I-285 signs posted for at least another 10 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 20, 2016, 07:34:14 AM
http://www.witn.com/content/news/Work-on-dangerous-Lenoir-County-intersection-expected-finished-soon-390761191.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Work-on-dangerous-Lenoir-County-intersection-expected-finished-soon-390761191.html)

Quote
LENOIR COUNTY, N.C. (WITN) - The department of transportation says work to upgrade a troublesome intersection in Lenoir County is almost finished and should be done before school starts.

Officials say construction at the intersection of Highway 11 and Ferrell Road, north of Kinston, should be completed by next Friday.

The DOT says the intersection has a high crash incident rate, with Grainger Station Road and Ferrell Road coming into Highway 11 near each other.

They also say nearby railroad tracks also complicate traffic in the area, as well as nearby school traffic.

School officials say they're not planning any detours, but are prepared to if work isn't completed.

"We'll know ahead of time exactly what the situation is and we'll make arrangements to get the kids to school and from school safely," says Patrick Holmes, the LCPS public information officer.

The DOT says the intersection was reconfigured to eliminate some of the more dangerous crossovers on Highway 11.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 20, 2016, 07:58:09 AM
http://www.wral.com/fortify-lane-shifts-planned-for-i-40-west-this-weekend/15943064/ (http://www.wral.com/fortify-lane-shifts-planned-for-i-40-west-this-weekend/15943064/)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. – Construction crews plan this weekend to shift traffic onto new travel lanes in a section of the Fortify zone on Interstate 40 West.

Weather permitting, the lane shifts will happen Saturday at about 11 p.m. from the I-40/Interstate 440 split to Rock Quarry Road (Exit 300).

By early Sunday, drivers on westbound I-40 will travel that stretch of the project on newly paved lanes.

Crews have been moving concrete barriers in the area this week to prepare for the move.

An additional westbound shift is possible between South Saunders Street (Exit 298) and Lake Wheeler Road (Exit 297) before the project is put on hold over Labor Day weekend.

North Carolina State Department of Transportation officials say the goal is to have all traffic within the 8.5-mile Fortify zone on new inside lanes in both directions by early fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2016, 08:48:03 AM
I was noticing that I-495 is signed between I-440 and I-540.  Will that eventually have to change when I-87 gets built?  I assume that if so this will remain signed as I-495 until crews bring the rest of US 64 up to interstate standards with proper shoulders the entire way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 20, 2016, 10:01:22 AM
I was noticing that I-495 is signed between I-440 and I-540.  Will that eventually have to change when I-87 gets built?  I assume that if so this will remain signed as I-495 until crews bring the rest of US 64 up to interstate standards with proper shoulders the entire way.

NCDOT plans to decommission I-495. They haven't said when, but there's a big chance they'll ask to have it done during AASHTO's next meeting in November. At the same time, I expect they'll ask to put up I-87 shields between I-40 and I-540, so while they're taking down I-495 shields, they can put up I-87 shields at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

AASHTO's deadline for applications is September 16, so it shouldn't be too much longer before we find out for sure.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:15:58 PM
I personally don't think Interstate 495 should have existed, even as a temporary designation. Since it now will never reach Interstate 95 under that number, maybe it could have been an x-40 3-digit Interstate, although there aren't many of those numbers left. Perhaps, it should have stayed just US 64/264.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 22, 2016, 06:11:18 PM
I personally don't think Interstate 495 should have existed, even as a temporary designation. Since it now will never reach Interstate 95 under that number, maybe it could have been an x-40 3-digit Interstate, although there aren't many of those numbers left. Perhaps, it should have stayed just US 64/264.

After NCDOT's attempt at I-44 went nowhere, I-495 was apparently "Plan B". I don't think NCDOT anticipated legislation designating the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor passing as quick as it did. If they had, I doubt they would've wasted time and money on I-495 in the first place.

Speaking of US-64/264, I wish NCDOT would truncate US-264 back to Zebulon. That concurrency is one of the most useless concurrencies I've seen and driven. Plus, it would be less clutter on the BGS.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 22, 2016, 06:53:53 PM
Speaking of US-64/264, I wish NCDOT would truncate US-264 back to Zebulon. That concurrency is one of the most useless concurrencies I've seen and driven. Plus, it would be less clutter on the BGS.
Huh? How is EAST 64 TO 264 less clutter than EAST 64 EAST 264?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 22, 2016, 08:02:04 PM
Speaking of US-64/264, I wish NCDOT would truncate US-264 back to Zebulon. That concurrency is one of the most useless concurrencies I've seen and driven. Plus, it would be less clutter on the BGS.
Huh? How is EAST 64 TO 264 less clutter than EAST 64 EAST 264?

Why would they need "TO US-264"? The I-495/US-64/264 junction on I-440 has Wilson and Greenville as the control cities for US-264, along with Rocky Mount for US-64.

Remove US-264 signage altogether between I-440 and Zebulon and leave the control cities as they are. Nearly everyone in the area is aware of the 264/64 split in Zebulon and where each highway leads. Plus, there are signs in Zebulon with control cities at the split for those not familiar with the area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on August 22, 2016, 09:14:11 PM
Why would they need "TO US-264"?
Because 264 is a major corridor that should be signed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 23, 2016, 06:17:36 PM
US 264 used to be co-designated with US 64 to the latter's eastern terminus at US 158, so personally I don't have a problem with the co-designation on the western end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 24, 2016, 09:12:07 PM
http://wnct.com/2016/08/24/key-eastern-n-c-projects-to-be-included-in-next-state-transportation-plan/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/24/key-eastern-n-c-projects-to-be-included-in-next-state-transportation-plan/)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. — The N.C. Department of Transportation announced Wednesday that several key transportation projects aimed at improving regional mobility and better connecting eastern North Carolina’s communities will be included in the state’s next draft 10-year transportation plan, which will be released in January 2017. The plan includes the years 2018 through 2027.

“A strong transportation network is the backbone of the state’s economy,”  Governor Pat McCrory said. “We took the politics out of transportation planning to ensure roads and other important infrastructure are prioritized based on need. These projects demonstrate the process is working as intended to make smart decisions that keep North Carolina moving.”

Projects for eastern North Carolina include:

Constructing the U.S. 70 Kinston Bypass from N.C. 148 to east of N.C. 58, part of the Future Interstate 42 corridor and an important connection to the Crystal Coast and Port of Morehead City

Widening U.S. 13/N.C. 11 from N.C. 11/561 near Ahoskie to U.S. 158/N.C. 45, which will improve safety and connect to recently widened sections near Winton in Hertford County

Widening N.C. 87 in Columbus County, which will improve access to the U.S. 74/76 corridor and support the agriculture industry

Upgrading U.S. 117 from north of Country Club Road to south of Genoa Road in Wayne County, improving the I-795 corridor

Improving the I-95/U.S. 701/N.C. 96 interchange and the I-95/U.S. 70 Business East interchange in Johnston County, facilitating a better connection between major regional routes
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 25, 2016, 10:44:37 AM
NCDOT has also issued press releases regarding 2017-2028 Draft STIP projects for other areas on NC. Available toward the bottom of the page:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0)

It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP. There are no projects in the current of draft STIP for upgrading US 52 north of the Beltway to Interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 25, 2016, 11:59:26 AM
It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP.

It's probably just a gaffe on their part.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 25, 2016, 12:07:55 PM
NCDOT has also issued press releases regarding 2017-2028 Draft STIP projects for other areas on NC. Available toward the bottom of the page:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/default.aspx#0)

It contains this curious entry in 'Central N.C. Projects':
"Constructing another segment of the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway from N.C. 67 to south of U.S.  52 in Forsyth County, which will improve regional mobility."

Curious, in the use of 'another' in that this would be the first segment of the western section of the Beltway to be constructed, part of the proposed I-274. The current construction is for the eastern section, the future I-74, where all the segments are now funded in the current STIP. There are no projects in the current of draft STIP for upgrading US 52 north of the Beltway to Interstate standards.


IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2016, 03:27:14 PM

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 25, 2016, 10:11:33 PM

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier.

They should have done that when they first opened the I-74 section from I-77 to US 52 near Mt. Airy. Why have they not done that (other than Future I-74 Corridor sign that I have not seen on that section of US 52 between I-74 and the future beltway exit lately) is beyond me.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 25, 2016, 11:12:55 PM

IMO, Western beltway is not really needed. They should fund US 52 north AND south of the beltway first. Makes no sense to start construction for the eastern side of the beltway only to end I-74 at US 52 a couple of years later without upgrading the rest of US 52 to interstate standards which probably won't happen until after the beltway is fully built.

Maybe it's time for NCDOT to pull some of those "Future I-74" shields that were previously used on the 73/74 multiplex out of mothballs -- and are probably languishing somewhere in a corporate yard -- and install them along US 52 from the future beltway interchange site north to the existing I-74 connection to I-77.  Hey, it worked before; no reason why it wouldn't work again as a "virtual" route identifier.

They should have done that when they first opened the I-74 section from I-77 to US 52 near Mt. Airy. Why have they not done that (other than Future I-74 Corridor sign that I have not seen on that section of US 52 between I-74 and the future beltway exit lately) is beyond me.

NCDOT wanted to sign I-74 along US 52 from Mt. Airy to the future Beltway interchange when the corridor was approved in 1997 and to sign 'Temporary' I-74 along US 52 south to I-40. The FHWA disallowed the interstate designation since US 52 wasn't up to interstate standards and AASHTO disallowed the Temp. designation, though they gave them permission to sign that part of US 52 as 'To I-74'. Since the rest of the highway wasn't an interstate it made little sense for NCDOT at that time to put up any 'To I-74' trailblazers. They weren't allowed to put up Future I-74 signs since there was, and still is not, any funded project to upgrade US 52.

IMHO NCDOT should go ahead now and sign US 52 as To I-74 from I-40 to Mt. Airy plus change the exit numbers north of the future Beltway interchange to those based on I-74 mileposts. This puts an I-74 presence on US 52 and will prepare drivers for the day when it is officially designated an interstate. I believe NCDOT will try to get US 52 signed as I-74 for when the Eastern section is completed, having a project funded by then to widen the shoulders and asking the FHWA for a waiver for any remaining substandard elements.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 26, 2016, 10:38:53 AM
I found the full list of regional projects that are included in the draft 2018-2027 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/regional_impact_projects_P4.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/regional_impact_projects_P4.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 26, 2016, 11:12:41 PM
I just found an interesting presentation of the Greenville City Council's meeting that took place on June 16. It goes into detail about their push to turn US-264 into an interstate from Greenville to US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon. It appears that Congressmen Butterfield and Jones are laying the groundwork in preparation for introducing a bill in Congress designating US-264 as a future interstate. It has support from NCDOT.

Also mentioned is an interstate standard upgrade for US-13 between US-264 and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel and the NC-11 Greenville Southwest Bypass, which is currently under construction.

No interstate number(s) was mentioned. If it's introduced in Congress and it passes, it will likely become law as simply "Future Interstate" with numbering to come later, just like the I-42 and I-87 corridors.

Info on US-264 begins on page 60.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument%3Fid%3D11528&ved=0ahUKEwiO7pqGvuDOAhUUH2MKHdiqA2AQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNE6SDkzLjrZtvC-bt9WTtX2zEZmuQ (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument%3Fid%3D11528&ved=0ahUKEwiO7pqGvuDOAhUUH2MKHdiqA2AQFggpMAQ&usg=AFQjCNE6SDkzLjrZtvC-bt9WTtX2zEZmuQ)

Looks like eastern NC's Quad East interstate system propsal might stand a chance of coming to fruition after all, with a connection to Hampton Roads to boot. Never say never in NC...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 31, 2016, 09:35:28 AM
http://wnct.com/2016/08/31/stuck-in-labor-day-weekend-traffic-dont-blame-dot-projects/ (http://wnct.com/2016/08/31/stuck-in-labor-day-weekend-traffic-dont-blame-dot-projects/)

Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) – The state Transportation Department is suspending most construction on major routes for the Labor Day holiday.

DOT officials say many projects along interstate, North Carolina and U.S. routes will be on hold from 6 a.m. Wednesday until midnight Monday.

Work will continue on various projects in Hertford, Tyrrell, Sampson, Pender, Vance, Warren and Jackson counties.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 07, 2016, 05:07:47 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 07, 2016, 05:18:13 PM
On another front: Google now has a satellite view of two nearly-complete interchanges being built on US 74 just west of Shelby:
https://goo.gl/maps/BfCcRfRLyNF2
This is the beginning of the construction of the Shelby Bypass, which is billed as an interstate-standard freeway.

What's disappointing/surprising is that this project doesn't begin at the current end of the freeway linking I-26 to Shelby. There remain a couple of at-grade intersections including an intersection of US 74 and 74 Business:
https://goo.gl/maps/ds5opoJcYCx

There must be an intention to upgrade this short section as well, but I haven't seen it in the STIP. Maybe I've just missed it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2016, 06:29:46 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287". :coffee:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 07, 2016, 06:37:59 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287". :coffee:
Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2016, 07:48:17 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287". :coffee:
Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 07, 2016, 08:19:56 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287". :coffee:
Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.

Since east of I-795 any routing along US 264, given the definition of the corridor as ending at Greenville, would have a "hanging" eastern terminus (barring a right-angle turn at Greenville to either I-87 or I-42, which doesn't seem to be part of the proposal), thus an odd-first-digit x87 would be entirely appropriate.

But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 07, 2016, 09:45:25 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I didn't expect NCDOT to seek designation this soon. But I'm not opposed to it. All US-264 needs is shoulder widening in order to meet interstate standards and it already does between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line. I'm assuming the eastern terminus would be Stantonsburg Road in Greenville. Looks like they're not going through Congress after all.

This will most likely be an I-x87. I doubt an I-x95 will be used since NCDOT wants traffic from Raleigh to use I-87 to access I-95 North, which was why I-495 is signed N/S.

I'm already placing bets on "Future I-287". :coffee:
Wouldn't this be a spur, requiring an odd first digit? There's no NC 187, so that number would be acceptable to NCDOT.

That was my first thought, but since it would connect to 2 other interstates (I-95 and I-795), AASHTO may prefer an even number, even though it won't return to it's parent. That was the case when AASHTO rejected NCDOT's request for Future I-185 for US-52 between I-85 and I-40 while Future I-285 got approved instead.

Since east of I-795 any routing along US 264, given the definition of the corridor as ending at Greenville, would have a "hanging" eastern terminus (barring a right-angle turn at Greenville to either I-87 or I-42, which doesn't seem to be part of the proposal), thus an odd-first-digit x87 would be entirely appropriate.

But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!

The key is this is being petitioned administratively.  All the FHWA has to decide is the following:

In the Administrative path, the FHWA makes an administrative determination of whether the proposed highway would be a logical addition to the Interstate system. In the Congressional path, no such determination is required.
In the Administrative path, the State(s) must make a commitment to complete the highway to Interstate design standards within 25 years from the designation as a future Interstate. In the Congressional path, no such commitment is required (with the exception of designation under P.L. 110-244)

Now the original Raleigh-Norfolk corridor was petitioned for Interstate 44 (not 50) administratively and was rejected and it appears the FHWA gave alternative suggestions for a number. (or even said there's no way this will be finished in 25 years)  NCDOT's response to Adam Froehlig's e-mail kinda hints to that.  After 44 was not approved, they did petition and received approval for 495.  Which again goes to my point if it meets or will meet standards in 25 years (see above) and is a logical addition or connects to the current system, that's all the sufficient reason to the FHWA to add to the system.

Now where I can understand those who have issues with the designations is that after not being approve for the I-44 corridor, NC went via the Congressional path.  There are no such limitations via that route and that I can understand where people would have issue with it.  However, if they are going via the administrative route - I don't see any issues with it and the requirements are clear (albeit open) on what is needed for a highway to be a Future Interstate Corridor.

And in the case of US 264 from Zebulon to Greenville - all that is really needed is widening shoulders.  The current Draft STIP had upgrading 264 from WIlson to Greenville  to Interstate standards on it.  So the 25 year threshold is nearly met (the wilson bypass is to standard). it also connects to the existing system.  The criteria for the administrative route is met.  It could still be denied but the basic publish criteria would be met.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 07, 2016, 10:14:28 PM
The NC Governor's Office has announced today that NCDOT will seek an interstate designation for US 264 from Knightdale to Greenville. No one in this forum will be surprised, but here it is:
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/state-seeking-future-interstate-designation-us-264-greenville

I wonder where the Interstate will end, at exit 73 (approaching into Greenville, even maybe a Business Spur into downtown), or where US 264 / US 264 ALT connect on the eastern end of Greenville.  Personally I prefer the western end.  They can also revert US 264 Alt back as main US 264 once the route is signed Interstate, which is not uncommon. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2016, 11:34:37 PM
But this being the state that first proposed I-50, then a grid-breaking I-36 for the US 70 corridor, I wouldn't put it past them to ask for I-46 or I-48 for this corridor.  If Knightdale is indeed this proposed route's west terminus, it would have to be multiplexed with I-87 as US 264 is multiplexed with US 64 today.  In that case, the corridor is about 80 miles in length (about 64 without the coincidence) -- likely enough for NCDOT to consider a 2di.  That would actually be a bit humorous -- two years ago, the Triangle was served by 2 trunk interstates; if 264 became a 2di, the number would be up to 5.  I'll give it to NC in one respect -- they've certainly got brass cojones!

The article says the western terminus would be the US-64/264 split in Zebulon, not Knightdale.

NCDOT never proposed I-50. That number was a suggestion made by the US-70 Corridor Commission.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 08, 2016, 12:11:37 AM
The article says the western terminus would be the US-64/264 split in Zebulon, not Knightdale.

NCDOT never proposed I-50. That number was a suggestion made by the US-70 Corridor Commission.
Cobbled together my previous post on my work computer just before leaving, based on the posted info; didn't get a chance to actually read the article until I got home.  If the proposed Interstate's western terminus is indeed Zebulon rather than multiplexing all the way to Knightdale, then that would certainly lessen the chances that a 2di would be sought (64 miles is a bit marginal compared to 80).  As far as the I-50 suggested designation is concerned, I meant, in context, that that number originated within a NC-based organization, not NCDOT specifically (they do get a definite cite for the subsequent I-36 proposal, however).  The gist of my comments are that within the NC transportation "apparatus" it's like a game of horseshoes -- "close enough" counts when it comes to designations! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 08, 2016, 04:07:05 PM
http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/08/Governor-seeking-future-interstate-designation-for-U-S-264.html

The Governor's office is trying to market this as making Greenville "more accessible." I'm not entirely sure how widening the shoulders on an existing freeway will do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 08, 2016, 04:31:04 PM
Assuming AASHTO and FHWA approve I-x87 for US-264, NC would have the honor of having two 3-digit concurrencies (I-785/I-840, I-795/I-x87). :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 08, 2016, 04:38:27 PM
http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/08/Governor-seeking-future-interstate-designation-for-U-S-264.html

The Governor's office is trying to market this as making Greenville "more accessible." I'm not entirely sure how widening the shoulders on an existing freeway will do that.
In this context, the governor's office's statement is code for "we want to attract foreign investment -- mostly in regards to warehousing & distribution -- to the area, and we think that a direct Interstate to the main city in the area will help with that".  Greenville already lies at a junction of East Carolina rail branches, so access to the CSX and NS main lines is assured (including close access to the planned Rocky Mount CSX hub); but apparently it is also felt that "nailing down" expedited truck access via an Interstate route would be an additional attractant (much the same logic, directed toward the port area, was manifested in the designation of I-42). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 08, 2016, 06:42:37 PM
I still like the number I chose previously for the US 264 corridor: Interstate 187!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 08, 2016, 06:59:04 PM
I agree. But none of us have been very good at predicting these numbers!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 08, 2016, 10:03:17 PM
http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/08/Governor-seeking-future-interstate-designation-for-U-S-264.html

The Governor's office is trying to market this as making Greenville "more accessible." I'm not entirely sure how widening the shoulders on an existing freeway will do that.
In this context, the governor's office's statement is code for "we want to attract foreign investment -- mostly in regards to warehousing & distribution -- to the area, and we think that a direct Interstate to the main city in the area will help with that".  Greenville already lies at a junction of East Carolina rail branches, so access to the CSX and NS main lines is assured (including close access to the planned Rocky Mount CSX hub); but apparently it is also felt that "nailing down" expedited truck access via an Interstate route would be an additional attractant (much the same logic, directed toward the port area, was manifested in the designation of I-42).

That's about the size of it. Greenville did NOT take kindly to being left out. However, Greenville being last in line to get an interstate in eastern NC actually worked out in their favor. They won't have to worry about Kinston interfering as they did before a few years ago now that Kinston has I-42 and US-264 couldn't become an I-x87 without I-87. Plus, US-264's upgrade would likely be finished long before I-42 and I-87 are done, perhaps even before I-795 reaches I-40.

Honestly, I'm surprised there hasn't been much, if any, noise from Wilson about this possible US-264 upgrade. I figured they would be just as vocal about it as Greenville. If I-x87 happens, Wilson would be in a damn good spot, since they would be at the crossroads of I-95, I-795, and I-x87.

But, I guess the fact that Wilson already has I-95 and I-795 explains their indifference regarding US-264.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 09, 2016, 10:10:35 PM
A poster on city data has put up pics of the Monroe bypass over there.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2643369-monroe-bypass-construction-aerial-pics-progress.html#post45425007
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 10, 2016, 01:40:48 PM
A poster on city data has put up pics of the Monroe bypass over there.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2643369-monroe-bypass-construction-aerial-pics-progress.html#post45425007

I hope the sections of US 74 in between the bypass and Rockingham are funded in the upcoming STIP. Charlotte desperately needs a freeway link to the coast, especially since Charleston is an easier port to access from Charlotte, and not Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on September 10, 2016, 02:24:26 PM
I am not from NC, my mom's cousin lives in Durham so I have some family there.  But just looking at the interstate s and other freeways it's seems that Raleigh-Durham and Greensboro got more priority even though Charlotte is bigger. And Charlotte is still catching up. Is this accurate?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 10, 2016, 02:35:08 PM
A poster on city data has put up pics of the Monroe bypass over there.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2643369-monroe-bypass-construction-aerial-pics-progress.html#post45425007

I hope the sections of US 74 in between the bypass and Rockingham are funded in the upcoming STIP. Charlotte desperately needs a freeway link to the coast, especially since Charleston is an easier port to access from Charlotte, and not Wilmington.

It's honestly appalling that there aren't plans (or even talks of plans) for an NC Southern Tier Expressway connecting Asheville to Wilmington via Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 10, 2016, 02:39:48 PM
A poster on city data has put up pics of the Monroe bypass over there.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2643369-monroe-bypass-construction-aerial-pics-progress.html#post45425007

I hope the sections of US 74 in between the bypass and Rockingham are funded in the upcoming STIP. Charlotte desperately needs a freeway link to the coast, especially since Charleston is an easier port to access from Charlotte, and not Wilmington.

It's honestly appalling that there aren't plans (or even talks of plans) for an NC Southern Tier Expressway connecting Asheville to Wilmington via Charlotte.
There are definitely plans to connect Charlotte and Asheville, the above mentioned Shelby bypass is part of that corridor
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on September 10, 2016, 08:10:01 PM
A poster on city data has put up pics of the Monroe bypass over there.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/charlotte/2643369-monroe-bypass-construction-aerial-pics-progress.html#post45425007

I hope the sections of US 74 in between the bypass and Rockingham are funded in the upcoming STIP. Charlotte desperately needs a freeway link to the coast, especially since Charleston is an easier port to access from Charlotte, and not Wilmington.

It's honestly appalling that there aren't plans (or even talks of plans) for an NC Southern Tier Expressway connecting Asheville to Wilmington via Charlotte.
There are definitely plans to connect Charlotte and Asheville, the above mentioned Shelby bypass is part of that corridor

There should be a freeway along US 74 between Charlotte and Rockingham.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 12, 2016, 12:06:05 PM
And in the case of US 264 from Zebulon to Greenville - all that is really needed is widening shoulders.

I just found an article from the Triangle Business Journal that says it will take more than that to upgrade US-264 to interstate standards. State Traffic Engineer Kevin Lacy mentions it.

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/09/09/state-officials-hope-new-interstate-would.html#i1 (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/09/09/state-officials-hope-new-interstate-would.html#i1)

Quote
Lacy says that in order to bring the stretch of highway up to “interstate standards,”  crews will need to make multiple improvements over the next two decades, including widening the shoulders and raising bridges. Some of the improvements can happen in conjunction with regular maintenance, such as repaving projects “we’d do anyway,”  he says.

I'm not an engineer, nor do I have any engineering background, but the bridge heights on US-264 don't look much, if any, different than those on I-795 (other than the Goldsboro Bypass interchange). I'm also not sure what other "multiple improvements" are needed. Am I missing something? :hmmm:

If the bridges really are too low, I suppose NCDOT could ask FHWA for a waiver for those bridges, though chances are slim given how anal FHWA tends to be. If FHWA refuses, NCDOT will probably lower the highway rather than replace the bridges.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 12, 2016, 01:34:41 PM
Ramp merges/diverges may be substandard as well.  Regarding bridge heights, the current standard is a minimum 16ft clearance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 12, 2016, 07:50:03 PM
Ramp merges/diverges may be substandard as well.  Regarding bridge heights, the current standard is a minimum 16ft clearance.

Any substandard features on US-264, other than the obvious lack of 10ft. outside shoulders, would most likely be on the stretch between I-95 and the 64/264 interchange in Zebulon. If that's the case, then US-264 could be fully signed as I-x87 between I-95 and Greenville once the shoulders are widened between the Wilson/Greene County line and the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange in western Greenville. That would satisfy Greenville for the time being while the remainder of the highway to Zebulon waits to get upgraded.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 12, 2016, 09:02:04 PM
NCDOT and the SELC have reached an agreement regarding the Monroe Bypass.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article101378112.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article101378112.html)

Quote
The multi-year fight over the Monroe Expressway is over.

The Southern Environmental Law Center announced Monday that its client, the Yadkin Riverkeeper, has reached a settlement with the N.C. Department of Transportation to conserve some land near the highway.

Under the agreement, the DOT said it would deposit $1 million with the Catawba Lands Conservancy, which will use the money to buy land in Union County. The groups will be prohibited from filing new litigation about the project.

The Monroe Expressway, also known as the Monroe Bypass, is a 20-mile toll road under construction. It will parallel U.S. 74 and allow motorists to avoid stop-and-go traffic through Monroe.

The law center and environmentalists have said the highway will lead to sprawl, and that improvements planned for U.S. 74 will make the toll road unnecessary.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 13, 2016, 07:37:52 PM
When completed, will the US 74 designation be moved to the Monroe Expressway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 14, 2016, 02:26:52 PM
The US-13/Berkeley Boulevard widening project in Goldsboro is expected to be finished in October.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/14/berkeley_boulevard_work_progresses/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2016/09/14/berkeley_boulevard_work_progresses/)

Quote
Work is progressing along North Berkeley Boulevard, from Royall Avenue to New Hope Road, with officials anticipating the completion of the road-widening project in October.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 14, 2016, 03:41:30 PM
When completed, will the US 74 designation be moved to the Monroe Expressway?
The Expressway will be signed US 74 Bypass. The regular US 74 designation will remain where it is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on September 14, 2016, 09:25:34 PM
When I watched the NCDOT animation for the US 74 Monroe Expressway, I thought it was slightly odd that in order to avoid tolls on the bypass, drivers will have to pay a toll just to stay on the US 74 mainline through Monroe. Shouldn't there be a toll free option to stay on the untolled section of US 74?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 15, 2016, 03:43:21 AM
When I watched the NCDOT animation for the US 74 Monroe Expressway, I thought it was slightly odd that in order to avoid tolls on the bypass, drivers will have to pay a toll just to stay on the US 74 mainline through Monroe. Shouldn't there be a toll free option to stay on the untolled section of US 74?
The frontage road that crosses Stallings Road at grade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2016, 06:27:44 PM
Next question: Will the Monroe Expressway have exit numbers, and if so, will they be based on US 74's mileage?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 15, 2016, 06:43:46 PM
Next question: Will the Monroe Expressway have exit numbers, and if so, will they be based on US 74's mileage?
This may not have been decided yet. The project maps have the exits numbered sequentially (1 through 8), but no doubt that's only for convenience. Exits on the Triangle Expressway (the only other tollway in NC) carry numbers consistent with the rest of NC 540/I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 16, 2016, 05:27:06 PM
Next question: Will the Monroe Expressway have exit numbers, and if so, will they be based on US 74's mileage?

Very likely, that is how they did it on several others including US 70 Bypass in Goldsboro and US 17 Bypass in Elizabeth City.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 23, 2016, 01:55:52 PM
If passed, this would give eastern NC a fourth(!) new interstate running along the NC-11 and US-13 corridors from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston and US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel, essentially giving Kinston's Global TransPark and Greenville access to Hampton Roads. It'll likely be an I-x87.

I'm sure many on this forum will be pleased to read this. :poke:

https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation (https://www.burr.senate.gov/press/releases/burr-tillis-butterfield-jones-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-legislation-to-improve-eastern-north-carolina-transportation)

Quote

WASHINGTON – Last night, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 — legislation to improve Eastern North Carolina’s highway system by designating portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.

“The strength of North Carolina’s highway infrastructure is critical to moving our economy forward. Interstate highway connectivity is essential for connecting citizens and communities, moving goods to market, and supporting and creating jobs,”  said Senator Burr. “Greenville is such an important part of Eastern North Carolina, and I’m hopeful that this legislation will help this area expand on its reputation as one of Eastern North Carolina’s major economic centers.”

“This legislation is a direct result of bipartisan coordination among members of the North Carolina delegation to modernize and improve North Carolina’s infrastructure,”  said Senator Tillis. “Designating US Highway 264 as an interstate and creating interstate access along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11 would be bring a much needed improvement to the transportation corridor serving Greenville and the surrounding area, and would support Eastern North Carolina’s efforts to increase economic development and accessibility.”

“The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act will enable the Greenville metropolitan area- which is home to more than 170,000 people- to continue its emergence as a leading economic, educational, and cultural hub,”  said Congressman Butterfield. “It will help spur long-term economic development, trade, and tourism in Greenville and surrounding areas, including the future Woodard Parkway Industrial Park in Wilson. This legislation is a complement to my previously enacted ROAD Act and Military Corridor Transportation Improvement Act and builds on my vision to better connect eastern North Carolina with Raleigh, the Port at Morehead City, and the Hampton Roads region of Virginia.”

“The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act will support the long-term growth of our area by connecting Eastern North Carolina’s businesses to other key centers of commerce throughout our state and region,”  said Congressman Jones. “The third district has long been known for innovation across a wide range of industries. It’s crucial that we continue to support this growth by ensuring Eastern North Carolinians have access to high-quality infrastructure.”

Background:

Greenville is the 10th largest city in North Carolina, and the largest city in North Carolina without an interstate highway. The Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 will obtain an interstate designation from the U.S. 264/64 split in Zebulon to Greenville, and create north-south interstate access with a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11. This designation will improve transportation connectivity and economic development in Eastern North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 23, 2016, 03:48:15 PM
So -- they intend to do the whole "Quad East" concept in one fell swoop rather than in small bites or phases.  Not surprised -- with I-87 to the north and I-42 to the south, the iron is red-hot, so to speak -- at least in this area.  And I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see similar proposals forwarded in the near future (the appropriations bill for FY 2018?) regarding the US 74 corridor on both sides of Charlotte (i.e., a composite corridor between I-26 and Rockingham) -- it doesn't seem as if a project gets underway in NC without another attempting, in the wake, to jump on the bandwagon.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 23, 2016, 06:28:09 PM
So -- they intend to do the whole "Quad East" concept in one fell swoop rather than in small bites or phases.  Not surprised -- with I-87 to the north and I-42 to the south, the iron is red-hot, so to speak -- at least in this area.  And I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see similar proposals forwarded in the near future (the appropriations bill for FY 2018?) regarding the US 74 corridor on both sides of Charlotte (i.e., a composite corridor between I-26 and Rockingham) -- it doesn't seem as if a project gets underway in NC without another attempting, in the wake, to jump on the bandwagon.
It's pretty late in the life of this Congress, so I doubt if this act will pass this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 24, 2016, 11:17:14 AM
So -- they intend to do the whole "Quad East" concept in one fell swoop rather than in small bites or phases.  Not surprised -- with I-87 to the north and I-42 to the south, the iron is red-hot, so to speak -- at least in this area.  And I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see similar proposals forwarded in the near future (the appropriations bill for FY 2018?) regarding the US 74 corridor on both sides of Charlotte (i.e., a composite corridor between I-26 and Rockingham) -- it doesn't seem as if a project gets underway in NC without another attempting, in the wake, to jump on the bandwagon.
It's pretty late in the life of this Congress, so I doubt if this act will pass this year.

They probably did it to grandstand before the elections and I agree that they'll have to re-introduce the bill next year.

On another note, it was wise of them to include US-13 between US-264 north of Greenville and US-64 in Bethel in the bill. US-13 wasn't originally part of the Quad East plan. Seeing as the connection to I-87 in Bethel will link the region to the largest Naval base on the East Coast, I would expect this to easily pass Congress. If US-13 had been left out as originally planned, it wouldn't have a chance of passing, IMO.

The CF Harvey Parkway isn't mentioned in the bill...that was the proposed connection to I-42 that Kinston wanted because of it's proximity to the Global TransPark. It'll be interesting to see how NCDOT will connect the new interstate to I-42.

Upgrading NC-11 and US-13 definitely won't be easy. But at least the Greenville Southwest Bypass, which recently got underway, is being built to interstate standards. US-264 between the Stantonsburg Road interchange and US-13 will still need shoulder widening. The US-264/US-13 interchange will also be a problem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 24, 2016, 01:18:13 PM
Quote
Seeing as the connection to I-87 in Bethel will link the region to the largest Naval base on the East Coast, I would expect this to easily pass Congress.

Given it's localized nature, the likelihood of this bill passing Congress is basically zero.  More likely, it would be inserted as an amendment into a broader-based bill.  That's about the only real chance it has of passing.

That said...even if it passes, it won't give North Carolina any money to actually do any of these upgrades.  All it does is pay lip service to a long-range vision that is very far out on the timeline and funding timetable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 24, 2016, 03:59:11 PM
The CF Harvey Parkway isn't mentioned in the bill...that was the proposed connection to I-42 that Kinston wanted because of it's proximity to the Global TransPark. It'll be interesting to see how NCDOT will connect the new interstate to I-42.
Surely the Harvey Parkway would be part of this proposed interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2016, 10:55:03 AM
The CF Harvey Parkway isn't mentioned in the bill...that was the proposed connection to I-42 that Kinston wanted because of it's proximity to the Global TransPark. It'll be interesting to see how NCDOT will connect the new interstate to I-42.
Surely the Harvey Parkway would be part of this proposed interstate.

It may be. I was just going by the wording of the bill. Either way, it would make sense to use the parkway since it's interchange with US-70 is already built and the recently opened section between US-70 and US-258 already meets interstate standards. The old section between US-258 and NC-58 will need upgrading due to the at-grades (including a railroad crossing) and narrow shoulders. The proposed Harvey Parkway extension from NC-58 to NC-11 will meet interstate standards once it's built.

https://ncdot.gov/projects/CFharveyPkwyExt/default.html (https://ncdot.gov/projects/CFharveyPkwyExt/default.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 30, 2016, 09:49:41 PM
I was in Shelby NC for the first time today made a morning trip to Cleveland Mall and Tractor Supply in the evening with going to the Cleveland County fair in the middle.  Wow, is Bypass 74 a mess, multiple signal cues on 74 at Biz 74 and NC 180 ALL Freaking DAY.  The freeway bypass cannot come too soon.  I wish I could see a map of where the eastern section will go.  I drove past where I think it will cross NC 18 and 150, but it seems somewhat built up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 22, 2016, 07:53:13 AM
Business 40 in Winston-Salem has been re-designated as "Salem Parkway".

http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/business-renamed-salem-parkway/article_f1ff63f8-dc8f-5452-975f-db84e9ccb63e.html?mode=jqm (http://m.journalnow.com/news/local/business-renamed-salem-parkway/article_f1ff63f8-dc8f-5452-975f-db84e9ccb63e.html?mode=jqm)

Quote
Gov. Pat McCrory made the official announcement Friday that Business 40 is being renamed Salem Parkway as work lines up for a $100 million do-over of a mile-long segment of the downtown freeway.

Standing in front of BB&T Ballpark, McCrory announced the new name as a sign was unwrapped behind him bearing the words Salem Parkway and the U.S. 421 road designation.

The name was chosen by Triad residents from among four finalist names, which were selected by a panel from among hundreds of entries.

“We are going to make Business 40 safe,”  McCrory said, before revealing the name. “We are going to make it beautiful. We are going to make it flow better and it is going to be an entryway into one of the most beautiful cities in America – Winston-Salem.”

Among the four finalist names, Salem Parkway was the overwhelming favorite among those casting more than 9,800 votes. Salem Parkway got 5,215 votes, or 53 percent, while the next-highest favorite, Piedmont Corridor, received 3,055 votes, or 31 percent. There were 911 votes cast for Golden Leaf Parkway (9 percent) and 698 votes for Innovation Highway (7 percent).

The four names all expressed some aspect of local culture: Golden Leaf alluded to the region’s tobacco-growing and processing heritage, while Salem of course refers to the Moravian settlement founded in 1766. Piedmont Corridor alludes to the city’s geographic location in a highly developed part of the state while Innovation Highway tipped the hat to the area’s high-tech aspirations.

Pat Ivey, the division engineer for the N.C. Department of Transportation in Forsyth County, said the signs bearing the new name will likely go up in late 2020 as upgrade work finishes on the downtown portion of the highway.

For years, the road has had the double designation of Business 40 and U.S. 421, but when plans evolved to give the road a fresh look, they also came to include a fresh name for the roadway.

Business 40 was once Interstate 40, before a freeway bypass was built that took over the I-40 name and carried traffic through the southern side of the city.

The road name has caused confusion over the years among people unfamiliar with the local road layout since motorists had to be sure whether they wanted to be on Interstate 40 or Business 40.

Emergency personnel and police have long dodged the problem by calling the downtown freeway U.S. 421.

McCrory talked about the problems drivers experience with the short ramps on Business 40, and compared the road to Greensboro’s infamous “death valley”  where I-40 passes through that city.

Joining McCrory for the announcement were N.C. Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson; Jake Alexander, a member of the N.C. Transportation from this area; Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines; Dave Plyler, the chairman of the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners; and other lawmakers and officials.

Construction on the Business 40 project starts in 2017 with work to replace the Peters Creek Parkway interchange. When that’s finished in late 2018, a mile-long segment of U.S. 421 downtown will close for renovations.

That work involves closing some ramps so that the remaining ones can be lengthened. The road will also see landscaping and other design changes such as brickwork and artistically enhanced bridges put forward by a local group called the Creative Corridors Coalition.

Part of the freeway will reopen in the latter part oflate 2019, and the whole project is scheduled for completion by the end of July in 2020.

State officials said the construction project would involve the hiring of some 500 people and provide more business to restaurants, hotels and stores during construction.

Jason Thiel, the president of the Downtown Winston-Salem Partnership, said that with the improvements coming a new name for the downtown freeway is appropriate.

“”˜Business 40’ reminds me of a bypass route that doesn’t seem to do the road justice,”  Thiel said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 22, 2016, 09:23:15 AM
So is I-40 Business planned to be decommissioned?  (obviously the other designations of US 158 and NC 150 on its portions would presumably stay)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 22, 2016, 09:48:33 AM
So is I-40 Business planned to be decommissioned?  (obviously the other designations of US 158 and NC 150 on its portions would presumably stay)

Yes. Between I-40 near Kernersville and I-40 west of Winston-Salem at the US-421 interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 22, 2016, 10:04:16 AM
The article doesn't actually specify that they're removing the BUSINESS-40 designation.  Just that they will be emphasizing the US 421 designation afterwards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2016, 04:02:48 PM
So is I-40 Business planned to be decommissioned?  (obviously the other designations of US 158 and NC 150 on its portions would presumably stay)
If so, that would be news; NCDOT has always referred to this freeway as Business 40 and that's what it's called on the project documents on the NCDOT web site.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 22, 2016, 06:04:14 PM
So is I-40 Business planned to be decommissioned?  (obviously the other designations of US 158 and NC 150 on its portions would presumably stay)
If so, that would be news; NCDOT has always referred to this freeway as Business 40 and that's what it's called on the project documents on the NCDOT web site.
From the text of the article it appears the new signage will be going up after the reconstruction project is complete in 2020, with probably new signs going up along the entire corridor. So, if there were to be any decommissioning it would then be after the 'Business 40' project is over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 23, 2016, 02:46:26 AM
So is I-40 Business planned to be decommissioned?  (obviously the other designations of US 158 and NC 150 on its portions would presumably stay)
If so, that would be news; NCDOT has always referred to this freeway as Business 40 and that's what it's called on the project documents on the NCDOT web site.
From the text of the article it appears the new signage will be going up after the reconstruction project is complete in 2020, with probably new signs going up along the entire corridor. So, if there were to be any decommissioning it would then be after the 'Business 40' project is over.

+1.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 23, 2016, 01:10:14 PM
Maybe not decommissioned, but hidden?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 23, 2016, 05:00:03 PM
Maybe not decommissioned, but hidden?
Rereading the article in the Winston-Salem Journal, it seems clear to me that the city wants to eliminate the designation Business 40 and call the road US 421 only. So I think we can be sure that will happen when the construction is complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 01:26:35 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 24, 2016, 02:26:22 PM
Yeah, Business 40 designation will be removed after the project is finished. It will solely be called US 421. (US 158 and NC 150 in the multiplex.) This makes me wonder if they plan on removing Business 85 designation in the future for the Lexington-Greensboro section?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2016, 02:59:00 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.

I thought decommissioning business routes had to be approved by AASHTO since states have applied for business route designations before? :hmmm: I know FHWA approval isn't required.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2016, 03:04:54 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.

I'm of an age that I can remember traveling on I-40 when it went through downtown W-S (and also when it ended at Greensboro).

Would this be a rare occasion where a former signed Interstate freeway completely loses its Interstate designation? It will have gone from I-40 to Business 40 to no Interstate designation of any type at all.

And I'm curious as to why this became Business 40 when the new bypass was built, and not an x40 in the manner that I-75 south of I-640 in Knoxville became I-275.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 24, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
Just my opinion.... it seems so silly to me to do away with the Business 40 designation. It's such a logical designation to begin with. Approaching it from either direction on I-40, it just screams "this is the way to the Central BUSINESS District of Winston-Salem" so it makes since to just leave it there. Then again, NOTHING surprises me about NC anymore smmfh. Like I-87. Really?????
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2016, 04:02:51 PM
Maybe when the Business 40 designation is dropped, the exit numbers could be renumbered to reflect the mileage of US 421.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 24, 2016, 05:36:52 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.

I thought decommissioning business routes had to be approved by AASHTO since states have applied for business route designations before? :hmmm: I know FHWA approval isn't required.

AASHTO doesn't care about Interstate Business Routes and have mention this several times when states think they need their approval.  So no, it can be removed without fanfare.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 06:19:00 PM
Quote
Just my opinion.... it seems so silly to me to do away with the Business 40 designation. It's such a logical designation to begin with. Approaching it from either direction on I-40, it just screams "this is the way to the Central BUSINESS District of Winston-Salem" so it makes since to just leave it there.

Two reasons.  First, non-natives were confusing Business 40 with I-40, which apparently was causing some sort of problem.  Second, Winston-Salem growth has leapfrogged I-40 for years now so there's probably no much loss in dropping the business designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 24, 2016, 06:20:50 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.

I'm of an age that I can remember traveling on I-40 when it went through downtown W-S (and also when it ended at Greensboro).

Would this be a rare occasion where a former signed Interstate freeway completely loses its Interstate designation? It will have gone from I-40 to Business 40 to no Interstate designation of any type at all.

And I'm curious as to why this became Business 40 when the new bypass was built, and not an x40 in the manner that I-75 south of I-640 in Knoxville became I-275.
The Wade Avenue freeway in Raleigh was initially signed as I-40. After I-40 was relocated to the south, it lost all numerical designations (it's an unsigned secondary route).

As for Business 40 at the time I-40 was relocated in Winston-Salem,  I don't think AASHTO would have approved a new interstate designation for it, since I'm sure it fell far short of interstate standards as they were at that time. And I believe it will still be short of contemporary standards even after the construction fixes up the worst parts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2016, 07:27:52 PM
I have e-mail confirmation from NCDOT that the Business 40 designation "will be removed as part of the Business 40 project."  As a business route, it does not require AASHTO approval.

I'm of an age that I can remember traveling on I-40 when it went through downtown W-S (and also when it ended at Greensboro).

Would this be a rare occasion where a former signed Interstate freeway completely loses its Interstate designation? It will have gone from I-40 to Business 40 to no Interstate designation of any type at all.

And I'm curious as to why this became Business 40 when the new bypass was built, and not an x40 in the manner that I-75 south of I-640 in Knoxville became I-275.
The Wade Avenue freeway in Raleigh was initially signed as I-40. After I-40 was relocated to the south, it lost all numerical designations (it's an unsigned secondary route).

As for Business 40 at the time I-40 was relocated in Winston-Salem,  I don't think AASHTO would have approved a new interstate designation for it, since I'm sure it fell far short of interstate standards as they were at that time. And I believe it will still be short of contemporary standards even after the construction fixes up the worst parts.

Given that it's NCDOT, I'm a bit as surprised as hbelkins that NCDOT hasn't considered upgrading Business 40 to modern interstate standards and attempting to have it designated as I-640 (only even 3-di left).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on October 24, 2016, 08:08:51 PM
AASHTO doesn't care about Interstate Business Routes and have mention this several times when states think they need their approval.  So no, it can be removed without fanfare.

Interesting then that the application for presenting a proposal to AASHTO's route numbering committee - which was just updated this past August - has a line for establishing US and interstate business routes
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 24, 2016, 08:25:05 PM
AASHTO doesn't care about Interstate Business Routes and have mention this several times when states think they need their approval.  So no, it can be removed without fanfare.
Interesting then that the application for presenting a proposal to AASHTO's route numbering committee - which was just updated this past August - has a line for establishing US and interstate business routes

After further review, you were right.  However, I doubt AASHTO would object.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 24, 2016, 08:27:42 PM
Yeah, Business 40 designation will be removed after the project is finished. It will solely be called US 421. (US 158 and NC 150 in the multiplex.) This makes me wonder if they plan on removing Business 85 designation in the future for the Lexington-Greensboro section?

I-85 Business is already playing second fiddle along the route now, with newer signage focusing on the US Highways instead (like on I-85 near Lexington).  I hope NCDOT pushes for its removal as well; we do not utilize Interstate Business routes like western states do anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 24, 2016, 08:59:41 PM

Given that it's NCDOT, I'm a bit as surprised as hbelkins that NCDOT hasn't considered upgrading Business 40 to modern interstate standards and attempting to have it designated as I-640 (only even 3-di left).

Actually, my surprise was that NC didn't leave I-40 running through downtown and sign the new route as an x40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 24, 2016, 09:35:36 PM
Given how late the new I-40 around W-S was finished (ca. early 1990s), the old 40 was woefully out of standard by then and FHWA likely objected to keeping it as an Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 24, 2016, 09:37:40 PM
Quote
Just my opinion.... it seems so silly to me to do away with the Business 40 designation. It's such a logical designation to begin with. Approaching it from either direction on I-40, it just screams "this is the way to the Central BUSINESS District of Winston-Salem" so it makes since to just leave it there.

Two reasons.  First, non-natives were confusing Business 40 with I-40, which apparently was causing some sort of problem.  Second, Winston-Salem growth has leapfrogged I-40 for years now so there's probably no much loss in dropping the business designation.

Well if that's the reason then all other Business Routes for interstates in the country might as well be scraped too lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 24, 2016, 10:38:04 PM
As a non native who traveled both iterations in the mid 1990's monthly and now as a quasi local that travels through the area every other week, I think the goal here is to stop giving anyone ANY reason to think that they can use Bus 40 as a through traffic route.  I suspect, at least westbound, that half of Asheville bound travellers look at the map and go through town.  Frankly I fond the 40 bypass to the south noticeably longer and not all that much easier to drive.  After the 3rd westbound trip I just stayed on the old route.  On Sundays, it's not too bad.  They want to discourage any new drivers like me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 24, 2016, 11:22:55 PM
Given how late the new I-40 around W-S was finished (ca. early 1990s), the old 40 was woefully out of standard by then and FHWA likely objected to keeping it as an Interstate.

Keep in mind that the East-West Expressway (now part of the Salem Parkway) was the very first section to be incorporated as an Interstate in North Carolina (1958), it's original purpose was a rerouting of US 158 and the standards used predates the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956.  In the 1980s, the state convinced FHWA the need of a new I-40 through Winston-Salem, not the other way around; this was for funding purposes, which is why that section became the last to be completed in 1992.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 25, 2016, 02:44:55 PM
They should just make 421 interstate-standard all the way to Wilkesboro (or at least I-77). :bigass:

Given that it's NCDOT, I'm a bit as surprised as hbelkins that NCDOT hasn't considered upgrading Business 40 to modern interstate standards and attempting to have it designated as I-640 (only even 3-di left).
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 25, 2016, 03:00:58 PM
Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 25, 2016, 04:36:23 PM
Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 25, 2016, 07:00:27 PM
Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.
As a politically sensitive state agency, NCDOT pays pretty close attention to what the local leadership says they want. We certainly saw that in the eastern part of the state, where NCDOT rolled over on demands for I-42, I-87, and I-whatever US 264 is going to be. But in Winston-Salem, the city isn't asking for an interstate designation, it's asking for the US 421 signage. So NCDOT is happy with that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2016, 11:34:17 PM
Would it be possible to upgrade Business 40 to Interstate Standards without tearing down a great deal of homes and businesses in the process? Might such an upgrade be warranted? How much might such an upgrade cost? If anyone has any answers to these theoretical questions, (I'm aware such an upgrade is not likely to happen) let me know.

Yes, it is possible. Outside Winston-Salem, the road is pretty much close to interstate standards as it used to carry I-40. Why didn't they do that... is beyond me.
As a politically sensitive state agency, NCDOT pays pretty close attention to what the local leadership says they want. We certainly saw that in the eastern part of the state, where NCDOT rolled over on demands for I-42, I-87, and I-whatever US 264 is going to be. But in Winston-Salem, the city isn't asking for an interstate designation, it's asking for the US 421 signage. So NCDOT is happy with that.

Bingo.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 02:34:22 PM
NCDOT has submitted an application to AASHTO for Future I-587, following US-264 from US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon to the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) in Greenville. AASHTO denied the request.

Request and reasons for rejection are on page 47 & 48.

http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf (http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf)

Quote
One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

So unless the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress in some shape, form or fashion, US-264 will never become an interstate.

I spoke too soon. I forgot that FHWA can still overrule AASHTO and approve Future I-587, which was the case with I-795.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on October 26, 2016, 03:56:59 PM

Quote
One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.


This seems like a weird set of responses for a 3-digit interstate spur, especially the one where it says it's 'not a spur'.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on October 26, 2016, 04:10:55 PM
NCDOT has submitted an application to AASHTO for Future I-587, following US-264 from US-64/Future I-87 in Zebulon to the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) in Greenville. AASHTO's SCOH denied the request.

Request and reasons for rejection are on page 47 & 48.

http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf (http://highways.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20AM%20Boston%2c%20MA%20Mtg%20Materials/AM%202016%20Binder/SCOH%20Meeting%20Materials%20AM2016.pdf)

Quote
One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

So unless the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress in some shape, form or fashion, US-264 will never become an interstate.

The politicians in Greenville aren't gonna be too happy...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 04:42:39 PM

Quote
One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.


This seems like a weird set of responses for a 3-digit interstate spur, especially the one where it says it's 'not a spur'.

I know. That's what I don't understand. Anybody can look at a map and clearly see that it's a spur. It's no different than I-795, other than being longer. One of the reasons also says that the route already uses "interstate highways". Wow, it uses maybe 3-4 miles of I-795 in Wilson. :banghead:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on October 26, 2016, 04:43:19 PM
Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 04:49:10 PM
The politicians in Greenville aren't gonna be too happy...

No, they aren't and I honestly couldn't blame them. AASHTO's reasons for denying Future I-587 are bullshit, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2016, 05:00:21 PM
Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.
I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 26, 2016, 05:39:47 PM
Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.
I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.


Plus, we don't need another interstate. Finish building others first (I-42, I-73/74, I-87) before requesting for more. Plus, Future I-587 does not make any sense because if it is going to connect I-87 to I-95 and then I-795, which should be an even I-xxx number... What NC should do is request a spur route from I-795 to Greenville, in which would be another I-x95.

I am glad it gets denied.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 26, 2016, 05:39:56 PM

Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.
I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.

To Chris' point: I don't believe the Committee members really look at applications in detail.   I believe on of the four claims it is not a spur. The other three omitted.

In comparison, i Would love to see the comments on I-14 in Texas (legislative lyrics assigned) and do not forget that the numbering folks were over ruled on 69 ECW.

And further if connecting to a state is that high of a criteria, then I-42 should not be such and be a 3di.  It is not Tar Heel Fatigue as you mention more so of a selective application of nonspecific criteria.

As for legislative route- yes that's one route of remedy. But if the FHWA - who have actual criteria - says yes it's ok. then NC can resubmit and have that in documentation.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 26, 2016, 05:42:14 PM
Without seeing the application NC submitted, this does seem to be an odd response to an application for a 3di - one that reflects an application for a two-digit route rather than a three digit one. It does seem to function more as a bidirectional spur from I-95 than a spur of (future) I-87, but that's more a question of numbering taste IMO.
I think the Committee is suffering from Tar Heel Fatigue syndrome and saying "no, not another one." This will simply lead to a renewed push for Congressional action.


Plus, we don't need another interstate. Finish building others first (I-42, I-73/74, I-87) before requesting for more. Plus, Future I-587 does not make any sense because if it is going to connect I-87 to I-95 and then I-795, which should be an even I-xxx number... What NC should do is request a spur route from I-795 to Greenville, in which would be another I-x95.

I am glad it gets denied.

So are you saying that programmed improvements to US 264 done prior to the proposed designation be moved elsewhere?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on October 26, 2016, 05:54:47 PM
Honestly, having I-587 run from the US 64/US 264 split to Greenville is odd. If it were approved, it would be at least half as long as it's parent, which is unusual in itself. If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 26, 2016, 06:01:51 PM
 :D
Honestly, having I-587 run from the US 64/US 264 split to Greenville is odd. If it were approved, it would be at least half as long as it's parent, which is unusual in itself. If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.
Or you could combine the two ideas and make a loop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 06:19:33 PM
If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

It's in the works.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9 (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9)

Greenville is more focused on US-264 since it would be the easiest and cheapest to upgrade. It already meets interstate standards between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 26, 2016, 06:22:14 PM
If Greenville wanted an Interstate, why not upgrade US 13 between Greenville and future I-87? That would make more sense as a spur to me.

It's in the works.

https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9 (https://www.tillis.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=2DBB05EF-83DE-4581-AF64-392AC9547DB9)

Greenville is more focused on US-264 since it would be the easiest and cheapest to upgrade. It already meets interstate standards between I-95 and the Wilson/Greene County line.


If that is true, why didn't they request a designation from I-795 to Greenville as an I-x95?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 06:33:43 PM
If that is true, why didn't they request a designation from I-795 to Greenville as an I-x95?

My guess is that they wanted to kill two birds with one stone by having not only an interstate connection to I-95, but also to Raleigh and cross-country via I-87's connection to I-40. FHWA would likely be more supportive of US-264's upgrade if it went all the way to Zebulon instead of just ending in Wilson.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 26, 2016, 10:11:45 PM
I'm not buying their reasoning behind denying the request. I guess they have never heard of a spur route or a concurrency/ :pan:

Well, maybe it will pass through Congress.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on October 26, 2016, 10:31:25 PM
Quote
One application was not approved from North Carolina to establish a future Interstate Route 587. The reasons are as follows:

Region 1 Member: The interstate system is intended to connect states and this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass

Region 2 Member: This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur. It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines. It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need, unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied.

Region 3 Member: This does not meet the definition for interstate designation. It does not connect to another state and also is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route.

Region 4 Member: Interstate system is intended to connect states, however, this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass.

Further proof this AASHTO committee must have access to some strong stuff.  I can think of many three digit spurs that are just as unlikely to be extended across a state line any decade soon such as I-380 in Iowa, I-555 in Arkansas, I-565 in Alabama, I-172 in Illinois, I-135 in Kansas, and I-176 in Pennsylvania.

And how is this not an alternative way to the Raleigh from I-95 in case of an incident on the future I-87?  :banghead:

(Edited to fix bad typing)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 10:52:32 PM
But if the FHWA - who have actual criteria - says yes it's ok. then NC can resubmit and have that in documentation.

NCDOT had the same trouble with I-795 when AASHTO denied it the first time during the spring 2007 meeting, also for the same reasons IIRC. FHWA backed I-795 and AASHTO approved it later that year.

While Greenville doesn't have a military base like Goldsboro, it's population and regional significance should be enough to convince FHWA to approve it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2016, 11:00:37 PM
Further proof this AASHTO committee must have access to some strong stuff.  I can think of many three digit spurs that are just as unlikely to be extended across a state line any decade soon such as I-380 in Iowa, I-565 in Arkansas, I-172 in Illinois, I-135 in Kansas, and I-176 in Pennsylvania.

:-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: english si on October 27, 2016, 05:03:31 AM
You'd have thought AASHTO USRN delegates, of all people, would understand that 'Interstate' doesn't mean that the network's only job is to cross state lines. Especially as the states they are delegates from (VT, MS, MI, CO) have intrastate 3dis.
Region 1 Member: "The interstate system is intended to connect states"
Region 2 Member: "It does not appear to have the potential to extend across state lines"
Region 3 Member: "It does not connect to another state"
Region 4 Member: "Interstate system is intended to connect states"

You'd have thought that AASHTO USRN delegates, of all people, would understand that odd 3dis are meant to be spurs. Especially as 3 of the states they are delegates from (VT, MS, MI) have odd 3di spurs.
Region 1 Member: "this is not a loop, alternate route, or bypass"
Region 2 Member: "This does not appear to be a bypass, nor a spur" <- hey this one understands spurs, but can't seem to read the map that NC would have sent
Region 3 Member: "is not an alternate route, bypass, or business route" (business routes are getting full blown Interstate Designations now in Michigan?)
Region 4 Member: "this is not a loop, alternate route or bypass."

Region 2's comment "It is already using Interstate and US Highways so I don't quite understand the need" is valid criticism, but then he goes and screws up by continuing "unless this is legislated by Congress (which we didn't receive) by the rules of the Committee it must be denied." Are the rules of the Committee really the case that if delegates can not grasp the point of a designation then unless Congress say it's OK it must be denied???

I fully expect to see this submitted again and again until USRN approves it, or Congress goes over their heads. I'd imagine the NC delegate would have massively facepalmed at the behaviour of his co-delegates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 27, 2016, 07:33:42 AM
Despite the reasoning of the committee members that some on this thread are slamming, this is a valid denial.  Boiling it down, NCDOT jumped the gun.  US 264 is generally not up to Interstate standard (except the short leg that is already I-795), which is a grounds for denial.  And while we don't have access to the application NCDOT submitted, I can tell from the language used that they have not coordinated yet with FHWA (who has the ultimate say when it comes to Interstate routes).

In short, if the route was already up to Interstate standard, or had NCDOT coordinated better with FHWA before submitting their application, the result likely would have been different.

And regarding Revive755's comment about "if there's an incident", the type of incident that would cause such a shutdown is pretty rare.  Nevermind that there are at least 3 state routes and several secondary routes in the vicinity that could also be used as detour routes to spread the traffic around.  Simply speaking, such incident planning does not require another Interstate route to be designated.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 27, 2016, 07:36:42 AM
I fully expect to see this submitted again and again until USRN approves it, or Congress goes over their heads. I'd imagine the NC delegate would have massively facepalmed at the behaviour of his co-delegates.

Honestly, maybe they simply don't see the need of an interstate designation there or as of yet.  I-87 is only a future designation at this time, I-795 exists, a lot still needs to be done along other sections and nobody willingly goes to Greenville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 27, 2016, 10:20:26 AM
Despite the reasoning of the committee members that some on this thread are slamming, this is a valid denial.  Boiling it down, NCDOT jumped the gun.  US 264 is generally not up to Interstate standard (except the short leg that is already I-795), which is a grounds for denial.  And while we don't have access to the application NCDOT submitted, I can tell from the language used that they have not coordinated yet with FHWA (who has the ultimate say when it comes to Interstate routes).

In short, if the route was already up to Interstate standard, or had NCDOT coordinated better with FHWA before submitting their application, the result likely would have been different.

As noted earlier, AASHTO seems to have their own selective set of criteria than that of FHWA. I agree that there's a good chance that FHWA will approve Future I-587 if/when NCDOT coordinates with them, which they may already be doing. While Greenville doesn't have a military base like Goldsboro, it's population and regional significance should be enough to qualify as a logical termini for I-587.

I'm not sure how US-264 being substandard (not by much) for most of it's length is grounds for denial of Future interstate status. US-52 being substandard between I-85 in Lexington and I-40 in Winston-Salem didn't prevent it from becoming Future I-285. There are many other examples.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 27, 2016, 05:06:11 PM
Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 27, 2016, 05:36:08 PM
Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 27, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

They might as well. It seems redundant to have Interstate requests go through AASHTO when FHWA has the final say-so in the end anyway. FHWA also seems to be more competent at handling Interstate requests than AASHTO, who apparently doesn't pay all that much attention to their applications. However, I agree that it's possible NCDOT didn't coordinate with FHWA, in which case it would be their fault. It still doesn't change the fact that AASHTO's stated reasons for denial is just asinine.

"nor a spur"....really? :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on October 27, 2016, 09:14:48 PM
Regardless of AASHTO USRN criteria (which does seem to be less than consistent between meeting iterations) or its rationale regarding what constitutes a viable Interstate route, it's likely that this matter will be "transferred" to the congressional arena -- particularly since Greenville and its associated interest groups are pressing not only an Interstate designation for US 264 but also for a N-S corridor as part of their "Quad East" omnibus concept.  Obviously now (late October of an election year) is not an optimal time for them to press the issue with their local representative(s); but once the dust has cleared I'd fully expect that next year's funding bill will have a "clustered" multiple-leg corridor concept as a new HPC, complete with numerical designations.  It's worked in the past and obviates the AASHTO "numbers game" -- which, given last year's convolutions re the eventual I-87 and I-42 corridors, would likely be an attractive option to local activists involved with this matter.

Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

They might as well. It seems redundant to have Interstate requests go through AASHTO when FHWA has the final say-so in the end anyway. FHWA also seems to be more competent at handling Interstate requests than AASHTO, who apparently doesn't pay all that much attention to their applications. However, I agree that it's possible NCDOT didn't coordinate with FHWA, in which case it would be their fault. It still doesn't change the fact that AASHTO's stated reasons for denial is just asinine.

"nor a spur"....really? :pan:

My guess -- and this is just a guess -- is that AASHTO, being a voluntary organization of state DOTs, is there as something of a referee or to work out a compromise if an interstate is going to cross state boundaries and two states can't agree on a number.

Two off-topic notes about the applications listed upthread -- first is that it seems to me that there were many fewer applications submitted this time than there usually are. Second is that the US 431 "change" sought by Kentucky has already been signed that way for years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on October 27, 2016, 09:35:36 PM
And regarding Revive755's comment about "if there's an incident", the type of incident that would cause such a shutdown is pretty rare.  Nevermind that there are at least 3 state routes and several secondary routes in the vicinity that could also be used as detour routes to spread the traffic around.  Simply speaking, such incident planning does not require another Interstate route to be designated.

That may be, but I'm not the committee that is denying an interstate designation based on a corridor not being an alternate route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2016, 12:05:50 AM
it seems to me that there were many fewer applications submitted this time than there usually are.

I noticed that too. Besides Future I-587's setback, I'm surprised NCDOT didn't request that the US-70 bypasses in Clayton and Goldsboro be signed as I-42 since they're interstate standard and they haven't asked for I-495/Future I-495 to be decommissioned and replaced with I-87. :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 28, 2016, 12:09:57 AM
Quote from: CanesFan27
Which makes me ask - is AASHTO really necessary in approving numbers and applications.  Should the FHWA   take over the approval and numbering process altogether?

FHWA already covers the approval process.  They defer to AASHTO for route numbering, except in cases (such as the I-69's, I-73, I-74, and I-99) where the route number is specifically included in Congressional legislation.

Quote from: Revive 755
That may be, but I'm not the committee that is denying an interstate designation based on a corridor not being an alternate route.

Only if you're using a very loose definition of "alternate route".  As a general rule, an "alternate route" has the same origin/destination and generally the same travelshed.  The "Future I-587" corridor as proposed does not have a destination or travelshed in common with "Future I-87".  And nobody in their right mind takes US 264 all the way to the Outer Banks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2016, 03:09:00 PM
Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/ (http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn’t over yet.

That’s according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn’t denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It’s only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

“And it can be measured, literally, it’s monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We’re going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,”  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT’s Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It’s important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 28, 2016, 04:17:00 PM
Would future Interstate 587 end at Interstate 95? Or would it be co-designated with Interstate 795 and end in Greenville?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2016, 04:56:07 PM
Would future Interstate 587 end at Interstate 95? Or would it be co-designated with Interstate 795 and end in Greenville?

Read the earlier posts...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 28, 2016, 06:32:26 PM
Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/ (http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn’t over yet.

That’s according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn’t denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It’s only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

“And it can be measured, literally, it’s monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We’re going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,”  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT’s Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It’s important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.
Can anyone think of a precedent for AASHTO reversing a numbering recommendation from the committee?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2016, 06:56:26 PM
Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/ (http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn’t over yet.

That’s according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn’t denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It’s only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

“And it can be measured, literally, it’s monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We’re going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,”  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT’s Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It’s important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.
Can anyone think of a precedent for AASHTO reversing a numbering recommendation from the committee?

I think it happened with I-69E, I-69C & I-69W in Texas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on October 28, 2016, 07:03:51 PM
I think it happened with I-69E, I-69C & I-69W in Texas.

Those were all legislated numbers (or at least interpreted as legislated numbers, since the law spelled out East, Central, and West), though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on October 28, 2016, 09:30:14 PM
Ok new topic...

For about a month now, the Welcome to North Carolina sign has been missing from I-77 N entering from SC.  Was wondering if NCDOT is planning new welcome signs.  I'm thinking not, since their welcome sign and license plate design are probably each as old as I am, if not older.   But figured I should ask anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 28, 2016, 09:34:58 PM
Greenville mayor Allen Thomas says that Future I-587 is still under consideration for approval from AASHTO.

http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/ (http://wnct.com/2016/10/27/request-to-make-us-264-an-interstate-still-under-consideration/)

Quote
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) — The push to get US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville designated as an Interstate isn’t over yet.

That’s according to Greenville mayor Allen Thomas, who said Friday that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation hasn’t denied the application to make that stretch of highway Future I-587. In fact, he said a report that was feedback from a side-technical advisory committee has no decision authority. It’s only there to simply advise on one technical aspect. Ultimately, the decision will be made with all aspects taken into account.

So for now, the process continues.

Local and state leaders have pushed for interstate status for the highway, saying it would help attract more businesses to eastern North Carolina.

“And it can be measured, literally, it’s monumental. It can be measured in billions of dollars. We’re going to be comparable to other communities in recruiting business here,”  Greenville mayor Allen Thomas told WNCT’s Ken Watling in September when it was announced the state would seek Interstate approval.

It’s important to note, Thomas added, that parallel paths are being pursued to get that interstate designation; administrative and via Congress.

Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Representatives G.K. Butterfield (D-NC) and Walter Jones (R-NC), introduced the Eastern North Carolina Gateway Act of 2016 back in September. The bill would designate portions of US Highway 264 as an interstate highway and by creating north-south interstate access for a new Eastern North Carolina Gateway Corridor generally along US Highway 13 and NC Highway 11.



Another interstates? wow. I hope they denied it. I think NC has enough interstates at this time. Finish the existing ones first. (I-26, I-73, I-74, I-42).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 31, 2016, 04:38:45 PM
Personally, I think North Carolina and Texas are having a contest to see which state can sign more Interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 31, 2016, 05:18:57 PM
Personally, I think North Carolina and Texas are having a contest to see which state can sign more Interstates.
I can assure you, no one in NC is thinking about Texas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2016, 02:00:29 PM
Okay. Scratch that idea. I still think both states might be going a little overboard on designating new Interstates within their borders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 02, 2016, 02:07:19 PM
North Carolina seems to think that interstate shields yield magical economic development powers. Putting a 3di sign on US 264 isn't going to grow Greenville at all.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 02, 2016, 02:59:30 PM
North Carolina seems to think that interstate shields yield magical economic development powers. Putting a 3di sign on US 264 isn't going to grow Greenville at all.

Studies are mixed - Greenville has a number of economic drivers in place and has been growing in pharma manufacturing. I'd have to go back to prior posts for the links but basically it can be summed up as an Interstate designation can help if the local areas have the economic infrastructure and programs in place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 02, 2016, 05:15:00 PM
North Carolina seems to think that interstate shields yield magical economic development powers. Putting a 3di sign on US 264 isn't going to grow Greenville at all.

Here's their reasoning: http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/27/Interstate-talks-shift-into-fast-lane.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/27/Interstate-talks-shift-into-fast-lane.html)

Quote
Roger Johnson, Greenville’s economic development manager, said U.S. 264 already is within 90 percent of interstate specifications.

“The roads almost are built to interstate standards,”  Johnson said. “There are sections where some lanes will need to be widened, but U.S. 264 almost meets the federal standards now.”

Greenville is the 10th-largest city in North Carolina and the largest city in the state without an interstate highway. Receiving the interstate designation will help Greenville recruit new business and industries to the area, Johnson said.

“When a company is looking for potential sites to locate, one of the most important factors is interstate accessibility,”  Johnson said. “Cities that don’t have an interstate often are crossed off the list immediately. This puts us back on those lists and allows us to compete for these jobs and industries.

“Those of us that live in the area know that U.S. 264 has good roads and that you can travel 70 mph on most of it,”  Johnson said. “However, these businesses all over the country don’t know that. This designation now will let them know that we have the infrastructure they require.”

What I find surprising is that there has been no noise whatsoever from Wilson (city or county) about the possibility of US-264 becoming I-587, given the city's excellent location compared to that of Greenville. :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 02, 2016, 07:37:31 PM
What I find surprising is that there has been no noise whatsoever from Wilson (city or county) about the possibility of US-264 becoming I-587, given the city's excellent location compared to that of Greenville. :hmm:

It's probably because they already have 2 Interstate routes intersecting in the immediate area (95, 795); another 3di wouldn't be much enhancement for a mid-sized city already well-served by the red, white & blue shields.  If US 264 would have warranted a 2di (say 46 or 48), Wilson's level of interest might have risen to the raising of a few eyebrows. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 02, 2016, 08:30:31 PM
North Carolina seems to think that interstate shields yield magical economic development powers. Putting a 3di sign on US 264 isn't going to grow Greenville at all.

Here's their reasoning: http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/27/Interstate-talks-shift-into-fast-lane.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/09/27/Interstate-talks-shift-into-fast-lane.html)

Quote
Roger Johnson, Greenville’s economic development manager, said U.S. 264 already is within 90 percent of interstate specifications.

“The roads almost are built to interstate standards,”  Johnson said. “There are sections where some lanes will need to be widened, but U.S. 264 almost meets the federal standards now.”

Greenville is the 10th-largest city in North Carolina and the largest city in the state without an interstate highway. Receiving the interstate designation will help Greenville recruit new business and industries to the area, Johnson said.

“When a company is looking for potential sites to locate, one of the most important factors is interstate accessibility,”  Johnson said. “Cities that don’t have an interstate often are crossed off the list immediately. This puts us back on those lists and allows us to compete for these jobs and industries.

“Those of us that live in the area know that U.S. 264 has good roads and that you can travel 70 mph on most of it,”  Johnson said. “However, these businesses all over the country don’t know that. This designation now will let them know that we have the infrastructure they require.”

What I find surprising is that there has been no noise whatsoever from Wilson (city or county) about the possibility of US-264 becoming I-587, given the city's excellent location compared to that of Greenville. :hmm:

That sounds like they're grasping at straws. I really don't think that anyone who is looking to expand into North Carolina wouldn't already be doing research into the state's highways and how accessible they are.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 03, 2016, 11:08:30 AM
You'd be surprised, I think. CEOs like bullet lists on powerpoints, and when considering a location for a factory or distribution center or whatever:
"1/4 mile from onramp to Interstate Highway"
makes for a much better bullet point than
"1/4 mile from onramp to US highway that is almost Interstate Quality".

For the first, absolutely no followup questions or clarification is necessary whatsoever. Everybody knows what an interstate highway is.
For the second, you have to ask "OK, so why is this highway not an interstate, is it really good enough for us?"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 03, 2016, 11:15:05 AM
You'd be surprised, I think. CEOs like bullet lists on powerpoints, and when considering a location for a factory or distribution center or whatever:
"1/4 mile from onramp to Interstate Highway"
makes for a much better bullet point than
"1/4 mile from onramp to US highway that is almost Interstate Quality".

For the first, absolutely no followup questions or clarification is necessary whatsoever. Everybody knows what an interstate highway is.
For the second, you have to ask "OK, so why is this highway not an interstate, is it really good enough for us?"

100% correct. +
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on November 03, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
You'd be surprised, I think. CEOs like bullet lists on powerpoints, and when considering a location for a factory or distribution center or whatever:
"1/4 mile from onramp to Interstate Highway"
makes for a much better bullet point than
"1/4 mile from onramp to US highway that is almost Interstate Quality".

For the first, absolutely no followup questions or clarification is necessary whatsoever. Everybody knows what an interstate highway is.
For the second, you have to ask "OK, so why is this highway not an interstate, is it really good enough for us?"

100% correct. +

The point I frequently make about Kentucky's parkway system.

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 03, 2016, 12:27:56 PM
Quote from: orulz
"1/4 mile from freeway onramp to Interstate Highway"

Basically fits the same bill.  Fundamentally the same...only difference is your Interstate branding.  But those who have half a clue will realize that you don't need to be right on an Interstate, and may actually find lower land costs away from the Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: vdeane on November 03, 2016, 01:11:13 PM
I would think they would care more about whether a route is a freeway or not rather than whether it's an interstate, US route, or state route.  There are many interstates that don't meet interstate standards, especially modern interstate standards (heck, I'd bet that most interstates in NY, PA, and some other places in the northeast have at least one substandard section).

Granted, everyone around here refers to everything as "Route X" (though Albany at least knows what an interstate is, though the media and local officials tend to misidentify NY 787 as I-787; moving here was the first time in my life I've heard anyone other than a roadgeek or a DOT employee use the word!).  Apparently in other places they don't do that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 03, 2016, 02:46:32 PM
Honestly I don't see the argument against an interstate designation here. How does it somehow dilute the notion of interstates to have a 3di run to a rapidly growing city of 90,000 that is home to a large, major university? I am in favor of a policy wherein if a road meets the standards and goes sonewhere, then designate it. If it almost meets the standard or is substantially completed, give it a future designation. An interstate designation is not a commitment to federally fund construction or maintenance so I just don't understand the reluctance.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 03, 2016, 03:24:34 PM
Not quite true.  A Future designation, by the books, requires a commitment to fund completion of construction within 25 years**.  Given the sorry state of Federal highway funding and the lack of desire for most states to commit their own state funding, it's unlikely that, even in North Carolina, many of these Future Interstate proposals would see completion within that timeframe.

** - There are a few exceptions, namely those Future Interstates specifically designated by Federal law.  But again, with that you're introducing Federal politics into what's really a local or regional issue.  Most of these were also designated back when Federal pork ruled the day.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 03, 2016, 03:55:28 PM
NC has one of the highest gas taxes in the country. For better or worse, this is what that money goes towards: lots of high quality roads to secondary and tertiary cities, mostly for economic development. It's not unrealistic, in my opinion, that NC will get US 264's shoulders up to snuff within 25 years.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 03, 2016, 05:38:26 PM
It's not unrealistic, in my opinion, that NC will get US 264's shoulders up to snuff within 25 years.

Agreed. However, US-264 will need more work than shoulder widening between Sims and Zebulon since that's an older section of freeway. Bridge clearances will need to be increased and it's possible that some ramps may need lengthened, though they didn't seem all that substandard, if any.

I honestly don't see any legit reason that US-264 shouldn't become I-587. All I've seen is the same ol' "NC has enough interstates!" argument. It's not like NCDOT is wanting to build a new interstate that has little chance of reaching it's intended destination (ex: I-73). The highway is already built and has two cities along the corridor, one of them having a population of over 90,000. If anything, assuming I-587 ultimately gets approved whether by FHWA or Congress, I-587 will probably be completed long before I-42 & I-87.

Do I think upgrading US-264 should take priority over every other project in the state? No, but I think it would make a logical addition to the Interstate system.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 04, 2016, 09:55:31 AM
I would think they would care more about whether a route is a freeway or not rather than whether it's an interstate, US route, or state route.  There are many interstates that don't meet interstate standards, especially modern interstate standards (heck, I'd bet that most interstates in NY, PA, and some other places in the northeast have at least one substandard section).

Granted, everyone around here refers to everything as "Route X" (though Albany at least knows what an interstate is, though the media and local officials tend to misidentify NY 787 as I-787; moving here was the first time in my life I've heard anyone other than a roadgeek or a DOT employee use the word!).  Apparently in other places they don't do that.

The key is the Interstate system is pretty much interconnected. Knowing that a warehouse, distribution center, or production facility is within x distance from an Interstate allows for the key decision makers to know that they can access the entire country by an Interstate connection.

Yes there are plenty of companies where that is not a needed criteria - but when choosing sites connectivity to various modes of transportation and networks are important and sometimes a determining factor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 04, 2016, 10:59:22 AM
An official groundbreaking is being held this morning for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. It will be signed as NC-11 when finished. The current NC-11 that will be bypassed will become Business NC-11. The bypass will be built to interstate standards.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html)

Quote
State and local officials will gather today at the starting point of the future Southwest Bypass for a groundbreaking ceremony.

N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson, Transportation Board Members Ferrell Blount and Hugh Overholt and Greenville Mayor Allen Thomas are hosting the event at 11 a.m. It will be at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 264 and Stantonsburg Road.

The planned four-lane freeway will continue south from the site for 12.6 miles until it merges with N.C. 11 two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11. It will wrap around the west side of Greenville, Winterville and Ayden. Work on the highway has begun and it is scheduled to be completed by June 2019.

Officials say it will relieve congestion and improve safety in Greenville, especially on Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road, and boost the economy by improving travel time along the U.S. 264/N.C. 11 corridor.

The highway's speed limit will be up to 70 mph. Officials said its five interchanges are expected to spur commercial and residential development.

The project’s estimated cost is $238 million.

On a related note, this bypass will become part of a future interstate that will run between Kinston and Bethel if the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Nature Boy on November 04, 2016, 12:49:18 PM
It's not unrealistic, in my opinion, that NC will get US 264's shoulders up to snuff within 25 years.

Agreed. However, US-264 will need more work than shoulder widening between Sims and Zebulon since that's an older section of freeway. Bridge clearances will need to be increased and it's possible that some ramps may need lengthened, though they didn't seem all that substandard, if any.

I honestly don't see any legit reason that US-264 shouldn't become I-587. All I've seen is the same ol' "NC has enough interstates!" argument. It's not like NCDOT is wanting to build a new interstate that has little chance of reaching it's intended destination (ex: I-73). The highway is already built and has two cities along the corridor, one of them having a population of over 90,000. If anything, assuming I-587 ultimately gets approved whether by FHWA or Congress, I-587 will probably be completed long before I-42 & I-87.

Do I think upgrading US-264 should take priority over every other project in the state? No, but I think it would make a logical addition to the Interstate system.

I have nothing against adding US 264 to the interstate system, I do have something against politicians getting support for these projects by screaming "THIS IS GOING TO HELP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT!"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 04, 2016, 01:49:06 PM

I have nothing against adding US 264 to the interstate system, I do have something against politicians getting support for these projects by screaming "THIS IS GOING TO HELP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT!"

Not too surprising that the politicians are out in force; the Governor is up for re-election on Tuesday. (Not meant as a political statement, please don't answer politically.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on November 04, 2016, 04:44:37 PM
An official groundbreaking is being held this morning for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. It will be signed as NC-11 when finished. The current NC-11 that will be bypassed will become Business NC-11. The bypass will be built to interstate standards.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html)

Quote
State and local officials will gather today at the starting point of the future Southwest Bypass for a groundbreaking ceremony.

N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson, Transportation Board Members Ferrell Blount and Hugh Overholt and Greenville Mayor Allen Thomas are hosting the event at 11 a.m. It will be at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 264 and Stantonsburg Road.

The planned four-lane freeway will continue south from the site for 12.6 miles until it merges with N.C. 11 two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11. It will wrap around the west side of Greenville, Winterville and Ayden. Work on the highway has begun and it is scheduled to be completed by June 2019.

Officials say it will relieve congestion and improve safety in Greenville, especially on Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road, and boost the economy by improving travel time along the U.S. 264/N.C. 11 corridor.

The highway's speed limit will be up to 70 mph. Officials said its five interchanges are expected to spur commercial and residential development.

The project’s estimated cost is $238 million.

On a related note, this bypass will become part of a future interstate that will run between Kinston and Bethel if the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress.
Here's a link to the official NCDOT press release, notice they also mention the US 264 interstate proposal (and that they still are awaiting that AASHTO decision...)
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13239 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13239)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 04, 2016, 08:03:26 PM
An official groundbreaking is being held this morning for the Greenville Southwest Bypass. It will be signed as NC-11 when finished. The current NC-11 that will be bypassed will become Business NC-11. The bypass will be built to interstate standards.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2016/11/04/Officials-mark-work-on-Southwest-Bypass.html)

Quote
State and local officials will gather today at the starting point of the future Southwest Bypass for a groundbreaking ceremony.

N.C. Department of Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson, Transportation Board Members Ferrell Blount and Hugh Overholt and Greenville Mayor Allen Thomas are hosting the event at 11 a.m. It will be at the southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. 264 and Stantonsburg Road.

The planned four-lane freeway will continue south from the site for 12.6 miles until it merges with N.C. 11 two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11. It will wrap around the west side of Greenville, Winterville and Ayden. Work on the highway has begun and it is scheduled to be completed by June 2019.

Officials say it will relieve congestion and improve safety in Greenville, especially on Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road, and boost the economy by improving travel time along the U.S. 264/N.C. 11 corridor.

The highway's speed limit will be up to 70 mph. Officials said its five interchanges are expected to spur commercial and residential development.

The project’s estimated cost is $238 million.

On a related note, this bypass will become part of a future interstate that will run between Kinston and Bethel if the Eastern NC Gateway Act passes Congress.
Here's a link to the official NCDOT press release, notice they also mention the US 264 interstate proposal (and that they still are awaiting that AASHTO decision...)
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13239 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13239)

I wonder what the odds are of AASHTO's SCOH overturning USRN Committee's initial vote once they see how absurd USRN's reasons for denial are. Since an application for Future I-587 has already been sent to FHWA, I'm fairly certain NCDOT has been in close contact with FHWA.

It's been mentioned before that US-264 being mostly substandard is what initially raised AASHTO's eyebrows, but I thought that was the point of seeking "Future I-587" and not "I-587". :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2016, 07:37:31 AM
Quote
It's been mentioned before that US-264 being mostly substandard is what initially raised AASHTO's eyebrows, but I thought that was the point of seeking "Future I-587" and not "I-587".

If this is the case, and since NCDOT did not go the Congressional route, they would also need to submit a plan for how they will bring 264 up to Interstate standard within 25 years.  If they did not submit such a plan, that is also grounds for denial.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2016, 09:24:19 AM
Quote
It's been mentioned before that US-264 being mostly substandard is what initially raised AASHTO's eyebrows, but I thought that was the point of seeking "Future I-587" and not "I-587".

If this is the case, and since NCDOT did not go the Congressional route, they would also need to submit a plan for how they will bring 264 up to Interstate standard within 25 years.  If they did not submit such a plan, that is also grounds for denial.

It shouldn't be too difficult to pull off, given that the most substandard issue on US-264 (other than the obvious lack of 10ft. outside shoulders) is the low bridge clearances between Sims and Zebulon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 05, 2016, 09:48:03 AM
It may seem easy, but the point is that NCDOT needs to have a plan in place if they want FHWA to sign off on an Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 05, 2016, 10:57:24 AM
It may seem easy, but the point is that NCDOT needs to have a plan in place if they want FHWA to sign off on an Interstate.

Which they already have begun with having 264 from Wilson to Greenville on the STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2016, 10:55:19 AM
NCDOT is planning to convert a section of US 70 east of Durham to a freeway. As described in this piece from the Durham Herald Sun, the proposed project extends eastward from the Future I-885 now under construction, but the conversion would end west of T.W. Alexander Drive. This means it would not reach I-540; there are stoplights at Alexander Drive and at Brier Creek just west of I-540.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/future-freeway-project-steers-county-discussions/article_424fbeb2-a542-11e6-ada4-abd55644202c.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 08, 2016, 11:09:42 AM
NCDOT is planning to convert a section of US 70 east of Durham to a freeway. As described in this piece from the Durham Herald Sun, the proposed project extends eastward from the Future I-885 now under construction, but the conversion would end west of T.W. Alexander Drive. This means it would not reach I-540; there are stoplights at Alexander Drive and at Brier Creek just west of I-540.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/future-freeway-project-steers-county-discussions/article_424fbeb2-a542-11e6-ada4-abd55644202c.html

A separate project is planned for converting the intersections at Brier Creek and TW Alexander into interchanges. That is under the purview of a different MPO and has a different project ID: U-5518. Environmental documentation is supposed to be complete for that by 2018 and construction begins in 2021.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 08, 2016, 11:34:16 AM
NCDOT is planning to convert a section of US 70 east of Durham to a freeway. As described in this piece from the Durham Herald Sun, the proposed project extends eastward from the Future I-885 now under construction, but the conversion would end west of T.W. Alexander Drive. This means it would not reach I-540; there are stoplights at Alexander Drive and at Brier Creek just west of I-540.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/future-freeway-project-steers-county-discussions/article_424fbeb2-a542-11e6-ada4-abd55644202c.html

A separate project is planned for converting the intersections at Brier Creek and TW Alexander into interchanges. That is under the purview of a different MPO and has a different project ID: U-5518. Environmental documentation is supposed to be complete for that by 2018 and construction begins in 2021.
So you're saying another interstate's on the way?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on November 08, 2016, 11:35:27 AM
So you're saying another interstate's on the way?
No. Stop spamming smilies.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 08, 2016, 12:04:17 PM
So you're saying another interstate's on the way?
No. Stop spamming smilies.
Sorry about that. I took them out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 08, 2016, 04:24:59 PM
NCDOT is planning to convert a section of US 70 east of Durham to a freeway. As described in this piece from the Durham Herald Sun, the proposed project extends eastward from the Future I-885 now under construction, but the conversion would end west of T.W. Alexander Drive. This means it would not reach I-540; there are stoplights at Alexander Drive and at Brier Creek just west of I-540.
http://www.heraldsun.com/news/future-freeway-project-steers-county-discussions/article_424fbeb2-a542-11e6-ada4-abd55644202c.html


Why would NCDOT want to convert US 70 to freeway when there is a future I-885 that would basically do the same job (bypassing that stretch of US 70)? this does not make any sense because if they are to make US 70 freeway between I-885 and end it a few miles away from I-540 (or extend it to I-540), what is the point of having them build a East-End Connector? They should leave US 70 like it is between I-885 and I-540. Maybe convert it to an expressway, but not a freeway.

I will not be surprised if they request for this section of US 70 to receive a interstate designation in the future.  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 08, 2016, 04:37:22 PM
Population of the Triangle area is predicted to DOUBLE in the next 20-25 years, so I would say we're definitely gonna need a second freeway. It will be both an alternate route in case I-40 is blocked, and a relief route capturing traffic between North Raleigh and RTP/Durham.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2016, 06:44:42 AM
Quote
Why would NCDOT want to convert US 70 to freeway when there is a future I-885 that would basically do the same job (bypassing that stretch of US 70)?

Because 40 is a rush hour mess.  Completing I-885 is likely to make 40 near the airport that much worse.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 09, 2016, 12:46:40 PM
Quote
Why would NCDOT want to convert US 70 to freeway when there is a future I-885 that would basically do the same job (bypassing that stretch of US 70)?

Because 40 is a rush hour mess.  Completing I-885 is likely to make 40 near the airport that much worse.


40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 09, 2016, 12:55:44 PM
Quote
Why would NCDOT want to convert US 70 to freeway when there is a future I-885 that would basically do the same job (bypassing that stretch of US 70)?

Because 40 is a rush hour mess.  Completing I-885 is likely to make 40 near the airport that much worse.

40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

Um no.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 09, 2016, 12:57:08 PM
Completely wrong. Through traffic that could potentially bypass Raleigh at rush hour is absolutely dwarfed by commuter traffic for whom 540 is not a feasible alternative. Your notion that "one freeway is enough" ignores the specter of population growth. The triangle CSA has well over 2 million people today and will probably be over 4 million in 25 years. How on earth can one freeway be enough.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 09, 2016, 01:03:53 PM
...and FYI the 540 northern arc already sees bumper to bumper traffic every day at rush hour from about Aviation to Six Forks, let alone the mess on I-40. When was the last time you drove in the triangle at rush hour?

In contrast to the Triad, where rush hour traffic is mostly manageable, in the Triangle it is a real headache that affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people each day. A half-measure like a mere expressway upgrade to US70 would be ineffective and basically a waste of money.

Triad:
(http://reprehensible.net/~orulz/triad_rush_hour.png)
Triangle:
(http://reprehensible.net/~orulz/triangle_rush_hour.png)

Both of the above images are taken from Google's "Typical" traffic for 5:30PM on a Wednesday.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2016, 01:52:08 PM
Quote from: Strider
40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 09, 2016, 02:58:06 PM
Completely wrong. Through traffic that could potentially bypass Raleigh at rush hour is absolutely dwarfed by commuter traffic for whom 540 is not a feasible alternative. Your notion that "one freeway is enough" ignores the specter of population growth. The triangle CSA has well over 2 million people today and will probably be over 4 million in 25 years. How on earth can one freeway be enough.

LGL44VL

Make sure you read my post carefully before pointing out about that "one freeway is enough". Who says that because it sure does not come from my post. Thank you.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 09, 2016, 03:00:15 PM
Quote from: Strider
40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.


Or maybe you just like to assume without asking for clarify. I drove through Triangle so many times, I know what it is like out there. Next time make sure you ask nicely instead of assuming I don't understand anything you guys are talking about. I am simply telling my OPINION. Take it or leave it. No need to bash, especially when a person like me who LIVES in the state and knows the roads so well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 09, 2016, 04:04:56 PM
Fully aware that you live in the Triad.  But that doesn't mean you are correct in your earlier claim that traffic on 40 could use 540 to bypass the rush hour mess...not when the mess we're talking about is outside the 540 beltway.  In point of fact, Triangle residents noted you were wrong before I even said anything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 09, 2016, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: Strider
40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.


Or maybe you just like to assume without asking for clarify. I drove through Triangle so many times, I know what it is like out there. Next time make sure you ask nicely instead of assuming I don't understand anything you guys are talking about. I am simply telling my OPINION. Take it or leave it. No need to bash, especially when a person like me who LIVES in the state and knows the roads so well.

So explain how 540 being complete will take traffic off of 40 from 147 to 540 which 70 parallels.

70 as a freeway to 540 more accuractely to Eastgate/Lumley Roads - which is a back entrance to RDU - is as needed as 1 to at least Wake Forest. 70 also has intersections with Miami Blvd and TW Alexander which feed directly into various parts of the park. The traffic counts and congestion at Brier Creek was anticipated enough that there is actually right of way reserved for an Interchange, I can go on.

As for the interpretation that one freeway is enough.  You make an argument that the East End Connector is all that is necessary.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on November 09, 2016, 09:05:04 PM
To me there doesn't seem to be a good place to build a freeway in the Raleigh-Durham area that will alleviate traffic off of I-40.  Sure, having a US 70 urban-type freeway from future I-885 to I-540 could help, but where else could one be built in the immediate area?

These are my offerings for ideas that may help, however, these two ideas involve bypasses of the area near RTP and RDU...

     1.  Upgrade US 421 to an Interstate-standard freeway past Siler City, build a new terrain freeway from there to US 1 near Moncure, and use the US 1/64 freeway back to Raleigh.  This could alleviate some of the traffic that would like to bypass Durham and the RTP/RDU Airport area.  And it does not need an Interstate number.  Have the new terrain section be US 64 with current US 64 becoming US 64 Business.
     2.  Maybe build a freeway along NC 98 from US 70 to US 1 in Wake Forest then continue along NC 98 to NC 96 down to Zebulon.  I don't know if this would fly because of some of the neighborhoods along NC 98 as well as how close it would be to the Falls Lake State Recreation Area.  I believe this would take some traffic off the main arteries in northern Raleigh.  However, there is still going to be a lot of traffic with the locals that live in this area. 

These ideas are ways that some of the "thru traffic" could avoid the RTP/RDU Airport area and maybe lessen some of the current backups seen in the area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 10, 2016, 08:27:04 AM
Making a useful bypass of the Triangle is a good idea. US 421 from Greensboro to Slier City, to US 64 from Slier City to Apex, to the 540 extension from Apex to Clayton, will be very effective. Already I use 64-421 to reach I-40 west from my home in southern Cary.

However, completing this bypass route will do very little to reduce traffic in the RTP / RDU area given the growth that is projected. Adding managed lanes to I-40 and boosting transit with commuter rail, light rail, and BRT are also planned, but again, growth is meteoric. If you understand local traffic patterns you will realize that a full freeway for US 70 is truly also needed.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on November 10, 2016, 10:33:45 AM
Just to let you guys know, I-885 is Proposed. It has not been accepted/approved by AASHTO.  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 10, 2016, 12:14:44 PM
Fully aware that you live in the Triad.  But that doesn't mean you are correct in your earlier claim that traffic on 40 could use 540 to bypass the rush hour mess...not when the mess we're talking about is outside the 540 beltway.  In point of fact, Triangle residents noted you were wrong before I even said anything.

doesn't make me wrong nor make them correct either (traffic volumes vary daily), so I am not worried.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 10, 2016, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: Strider
40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.


Or maybe you just like to assume without asking for clarify. I drove through Triangle so many times, I know what it is like out there. Next time make sure you ask nicely instead of assuming I don't understand anything you guys are talking about. I am simply telling my OPINION. Take it or leave it. No need to bash, especially when a person like me who LIVES in the state and knows the roads so well.

So explain how 540 being complete will take traffic off of 40 from 147 to 540 which 70 parallels.

70 as a freeway to 540 more accuractely to Eastgate/Lumley Roads - which is a back entrance to RDU - is as needed as 1 to at least Wake Forest. 70 also has intersections with Miami Blvd and TW Alexander which feed directly into various parts of the park. The traffic counts and congestion at Brier Creek was anticipated enough that there is actually right of way reserved for an Interchange, I can go on.

As for the interpretation that one freeway is enough.  You make an argument that the East End Connector is all that is necessary.


It is not my argument. It is my opinion, so respect it and move on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 10, 2016, 12:29:46 PM
Making a useful bypass of the Triangle is a good idea. US 421 from Greensboro to Slier City, to US 64 from Slier City to Apex, to the 540 extension from Apex to Clayton, will be very effective. Already I use 64-421 to reach I-40 west from my home in southern Cary.

However, completing this bypass route will do very little to reduce traffic in the RTP / RDU area given the growth that is projected. Adding managed lanes to I-40 and boosting transit with commuter rail, light rail, and BRT are also planned, but again, growth is meteoric. If you understand local traffic patterns you will realize that a full freeway for US 70 is truly also needed.

LGL44VL


Doesn't they have a plan to convert US 1 to freeway from I-540 north to I-85? Do you know if that will happen? (it might not help traffic, I am sure)

Suppose US 70 is a currently freeway as planned between (Future I-885) and I-540, how will it fix the gridlock on the traffic map you posted (at US 70/I-540 interchange)? Maybe the Triangle did not expect a serious population growth.

Like amroad17 mentioned, it is hard to build a new freeway in the Triangle except for a useful bypass. but, are the roads around the Triangle always planned like this or?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 10, 2016, 01:16:53 PM
They are a bit behind the 8 ball in the triangle as well as charlotte mostly because the old equity formula resulted in lots of rural freeways and not much money for urban areas, relative to population.

As for how the US freeway will help, with a credible alternate route between North Raleigh / Wake Forest and RTP / Durham, thousands of people who currently take I-540 all the way to I-40 will instead take US 70. As it is, US 70 gets big backups at every stoplight at rush hour, so clearly people are already trying to use this route. It's just already at max capacity so can't serve as a relief valve on I-540 traffic growth.

A lot of major highway upgrades are planned to begin in the vicinity of 2020 including US 1 from 540 to Wake Forest, US 64 through Cary/Apex, US 70 from 540 to the EEC, and some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2016, 02:20:28 PM
Doesn't they have a plan to convert US 1 to freeway from I-540 north to I-85? Do you know if that will happen? (it might not help traffic, I am sure)

The upgrade is being planned only for the stretch between I-540 and NC-98 in Wake Forest. There are no plans for any freeway upgrades north of Wake Forest. However, I wouldn't be shocked if NCDOT one day does decide to finish upgrading US-1 all the way to I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2016, 02:25:44 PM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 10, 2016, 03:38:11 PM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 10, 2016, 04:32:46 PM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.
I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on November 10, 2016, 05:58:40 PM
It is apparent that the Raleigh-Durham area did not project for the growth that has happened in the past 30 years.  In 1990, Raleigh's population was around 210-215,000.  By 2000, the population was around 280,000.  As of 2015, the population was close to 450,000.  The population of the city itself and the area around it has more than doubled the past 26 years.  No wonder there is quite a bit of gridlock in the area as there have been, with the exception of the NC 540 toll road, very few roads built to combat this.  Of course, with all the developments and subdivisions built up in the area, there is no optimal place to build an alleviating freeway.

It seems as if the Raleigh-Durham area is going to have to be this way for quite a while--unless NCDOT can find a viable solution to fix this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on November 10, 2016, 06:06:33 PM
It is apparent that the Raleigh-Durham area did not project for the growth that has happened in the past 30 years.  In 1990, Raleigh's population was around 210-215,000.  By 2000, the population was around 280,000.  As of 2015, the population was close to 450,000.  The population of the city itself and the area around it has more than doubled the past 26 years.  No wonder there is quite a bit of gridlock in the area as there have been, with the exception of the NC 540 toll road, very few roads built to combat this.  Of course, with all the developments and subdivisions built up in the area, there is no optimal place to build an alleviating freeway.

It seems as if the Raleigh-Durham area is going to have to be this way for quite a while--unless NCDOT can find a viable solution to fix this.

http://wncn.com/2016/04/29/ncdot-study-looks-at-possibility-of-express-lanes-on-i-40/
Hmmmmm now where have I seen this before...
But in all seriousness it's not a bad prediction to say that some sort of express lane system is on the horizen in the Research Triangle
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 10, 2016, 07:36:45 PM
Quote from: Strider
40 probably won't be a rush hour mess when 540 beltway (toll and free) is fully completed around Raleigh.

You completely fail to realize that we're talking about 40 OUTSIDE the 540 betlway, not inside, just as we were commenting earlier on upgrading 70 OUTSIDE of 540 (not inside).  As the others have noted, you are completely wrong here because 540 doesn't do diddly to help those on 40 through RTP.


Or maybe you just like to assume without asking for clarify. I drove through Triangle so many times, I know what it is like out there. Next time make sure you ask nicely instead of assuming I don't understand anything you guys are talking about. I am simply telling my OPINION. Take it or leave it. No need to bash, especially when a person like me who LIVES in the state and knows the roads so well.

So explain how 540 being complete will take traffic off of 40 from 147 to 540 which 70 parallels.

70 as a freeway to 540 more accuractely to Eastgate/Lumley Roads - which is a back entrance to RDU - is as needed as 1 to at least Wake Forest. 70 also has intersections with Miami Blvd and TW Alexander which feed directly into various parts of the park. The traffic counts and congestion at Brier Creek was anticipated enough that there is actually right of way reserved for an Interchange, I can go on.

As for the interpretation that one freeway is enough.  You make an argument that the East End Connector is all that is necessary.


It is not my argument. It is my opinion, so respect it and move on.

Unfortunately  you can't have it both ways. Are you saying no one should challenge your opinions? Or ask for further reasoning? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 11, 2016, 07:04:00 AM
The real answer is that transit will have to become a big part of the picture in the coming decades, if growth is to continue. Few corridors that are not already freeways or near-freeways can be upgraded without extreme expense and impact. Current growth rates have the triangle hitting the current population of the DFW metroplex in about 35 or 40 years, but there is no way to build out a comparable freeway network by then. So the only answers are that the growth will slow at some point, strangled by congestion, or that we will have to get real about transit, which can carry more people in smaller rights-of-way. The referendum on election day is evidence that transit is the way the region is choosing for itself, but that does not mean we should give up on freeways either.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 11, 2016, 09:28:01 AM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.
I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. :-o That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck. :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 11, 2016, 12:43:21 PM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.
I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. :-o That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck. :banghead:

I had the same issue when I went to Duke a couple of weeks ago. That curve at the end of the ramp.. wow! I am never taking that ramp again.

I hope NCDOT have plans to fix these interchanges in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 11, 2016, 12:55:46 PM
What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 11, 2016, 01:08:59 PM
What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL

Are the ramps similar at the NC 540/US 64 interchange? I have not been in that area.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 11, 2016, 02:07:07 PM
What could they do to fix it though? I guess any attempt to do so would be pretty expensive since it is very constrained.

Now another place like that are the ramps from NC540 to and from US 64 in Apex. The Durham freeway ramps are somewhat excusable because the area was fairly built up when the freeway went in. NC540 has no such excuse.

LGL44VL



The 147 interchange could use better warning signage.  The SB-SB ramp has a RAMP 15 mph sign about halfway down the ramp and nothing else.  The NB-NB ramp the 15 mph sign is much closer to the sharp curve.

The ramp from 540 SB to 64 WB is posted better (sharp 25 mph curve signs on both sides of the ramp at an appropriate distance) for its similar ramp as the 147 ones.  The ramp from 540 NB to 64 EB does not have GMSV but looking at the satellite it looks like it wasn't necessary to have that sharp a bend.  For the SB to WB they could've avoided these by integrating this interchange with the immediately adjacent US 64 interchange with Kelly Rd
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 11, 2016, 03:01:46 PM
Yes Kelly Rd is the reason the ramps are so tight to the west. I believe that the Kelly Rd grade separation and interchange was added in at a very late stage in the project. But there is no excuse for the crummy geometry to the east of the interchange.

LGL44VL

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 11, 2016, 04:29:37 PM
some portions of the 15-501 corridor in Durham near I-40.

I wish NCDOT could redo the NC-147/15-501 interchange. It blows.

Tell me about it. Every time I went through this interchange, I almost got rear-ended, swiped or anything. They seriously need to redo that interchange. Dangerous.
I agree. This interchange opened in 1998 and it was not adequate even then. Neither NC 147 nor US 15/501 were intended to be interstate standard, but people coming off I-85 drive at interstate speeds.

I remember when I came through there in January for the first time going from NC-147 South to 15-501 South, I almost shit my pants rolled my SUV over coming up on that very sharp curve near the end of the ramp. :-o That curve really took me by surprise. It took me a while to get used to it. I can only imagine how many wrecks have happened at that interchange over the years that were caused by it's poor design. The lack of signs warning drivers of those sharp curves doesn't help either.

I don't know what the hell NCDOT was thinking when they designed that clusterfuck. :banghead:
I've driven through this interchange many times. What's needed is flyover ramps, one from NC147WB to 15-501SB and one from 15-501NB to NC147WB. This would eliminate the two super-tight loop ramps on the north side of 147; those ramps can't be fixed because the interchange is bang up against the railroad. The two loop ramps on the south side of 147 aren't quite as tight and don't carry as much traffic as the two on the north side. Space is still a big problem, but there's probably some way to fit in the flyovers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 14, 2016, 09:23:28 PM
NCDOT is trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding from the president's administration designating the US 264 corridor as an Interstate corridor. I guess this is possibly some way that an interstate can be designated without it being written into law AND without AASHTO/FHWA assent?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article114682003.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 14, 2016, 09:49:29 PM
Kinda sorta not really.  Given Federal rules (which have the force of law given the Federal rulemaking process), it would still require NCDOT to have a plan to complete said Interstate within 25 years.  Without additional funding, that means NCDOT would have to pull funding from other existing or proposed projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 05:52:33 AM
NCDOT is trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding from the president's administration designating the US 264 corridor as an Interstate corridor. I guess this is possibly some way that an interstate can be designated without it being written into law AND without AASHTO/FHWA assent?

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article114682003.html

Has that ever been done before? That's an odd move, even for NC. Today is AASHTO's final day of their fall meeting. Judging by the article, it seems that AASHTO's SCOH did not overturn USRN Committee's initial rejection of Future I-587.

At any rate, I think it'll happen. I assume I-587 is still (hopefully) the preferred number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: vdeane on November 15, 2016, 01:16:10 PM
The FHWA serves under the president (the head of USDOT, FHWA's parent agency, is the Secretary of Transportation).  North Carolina is essentially asking Obama to order the FHWA to designate the interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 15, 2016, 02:20:08 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 04:45:51 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Looks like I stand corrected when I guessed earlier that AASHTO's SCOH didn't approve Future I-587. I'm glad I was wrong! :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2016, 05:22:09 PM
At least this Interstate 587 will have a direct connection with Interstate 87, unlike existing Interstate 587 in Kingston, NY where traffic has to utilize a traffic-circle to access the New York Thruway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 15, 2016, 05:55:20 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2016, 06:14:28 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 15, 2016, 08:55:40 PM
AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.

I-69 E/C/W is a joke, should never been approved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on November 16, 2016, 08:30:45 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

Government officials tend to not issue press releases like this unless they're true.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 16, 2016, 09:23:22 PM
Breaking news: AASHTO has approved North Carolina's request to designate US 264 between Zebulon and Greenville as Future I-587. Of course, FHWA approval is still required.
https://governor.nc.gov/press-release/transportation-association-recommends-approval-future-interstate-designation-us-264

Do we have something else that confirms this?  I'm not happy with a press release when I have seen AASHTO reject it with reason.

AASHTO's US Route Numbering Committee were the ones that initially rejected Future I-587 last month. The Standing Committee on Highways met during AASHTO's fall meeting this weekend, so they must've (rightfully) overturned USRN Committee's rejection, similar to what happened with I-69 E/C/W in Texas.

Today was AASHTO's final day of their meeting, so their minutes will probably be posted sometime within the next few days.

Yet another example of how, for better or worse, political will tends to trump (no pun intended!) "bottom-up" objections to a goal desired by groups or figures wielding a good deal of influence.  The original AASHTO rationale for rejecting the future I-587 request was that the action (a) wasn't absolutely needed, and (b) was applied to a route with a number of substandard features.  Right or wrong, that decision was eventually upended because (a) was a moot point and (b) other similar facilities had received future I-designations.  In this instance it was a combination of NCDOT and the local backers that turned the tide -- the loudest and most persistent faction ended up in the "win" column. 

I wonder if the 3di nature of the request -- "just" an auxiliary route to one that had been vetted & approved several months previously rather than yet another intrastate trunk was, in the final run, one of the factors prompting AASHTO's reversal; that perhaps the convolutions that surrounded the designation of I-87 & I-42 earlier in the year were a result of deeper and more demanding deliberations vis-à-vis these more recent events -- an effective "double standard" , if you will!   :hmmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 17, 2016, 05:00:05 AM
I wonder if the 3di nature of the request -- "just" an auxiliary route to one that had been vetted & approved several months previously rather than yet another intrastate trunk was, in the final run, one of the factors prompting AASHTO's reversal;

That and I think it was NCDOT working with FHWA. USRN Committee's stated reasons for denial held no water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 17, 2016, 02:45:08 PM
NCDOT may have been working with FHWA, but FHWA documentation still needs to be submitted by the member DOT in the case of Interstate routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 22, 2016, 11:51:35 AM
With news of I-587 connecting Greenville, one has to assume that Jacksonville is on the radar next. Not only is Jacksonville not connected to an interstate, it doesn't even have a fully controlled access highway connection to the interstate network, or even a plan to build one. At about 70,000 people, it is by far the largest city in NC in this situation - to find another such city, you have to go way down the list to places like Lenoir, Boone, and Albemarle, all of which have populations in the 15,000 to 20,000 range.

Jacksonville is not a complete outlier in the Southeast, however. Myrtle Beach/Conway (400k+) were the obvious winners in this ignominious category for a long time, but with Interstate 73 looking more and more likely to happen each year, we're left with Athens (120k) and Albany (76k) in Georgia as the two closest towns (that I am aware of) that are comparable to Jacksonville.

But regardless of the situation elsewhere, and especially with the large military presence in Jacksonville, you can see why there are some bypasses currently planned or under construction in the Wilmington-Jacksonville-New Bern corridor on US 17. These bypasses should increase speed and safety in the corridor, but I have to imagine that a fully controlled-access highway is in the cards at some point.

And really, if you upgrade Wilmington-New Bern, then add in the Carolina Bays Parkway extension, the New Bern Bypass, and Interstate 87 from Williamston to Hampton Roads, there are fewer and fewer stretches of US 17 that are not freeways or near-freeways. At some point, you could start to make the argument that the manifest destiny of US17 is to become a freeway from border to border through NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 22, 2016, 03:23:06 PM
Does Jacksonville really need an Interstate connection?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 22, 2016, 03:25:28 PM
Does Jacksonville really need an Interstate connection?


It is a home of Camp Lejuene. It probably will have a interstate connection in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on November 22, 2016, 03:39:39 PM
If Jacksonville needs a Interstate spur, there could be an I-x40 built along NC 53.  It is 29 miles to Jacksonville from there vs. 34 from New Bern to Jacksonville, although I could see an I-x42 built along or near US 17 if one is needed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on November 22, 2016, 03:57:09 PM
As for whether Jacksonville needs an interstate, not necessarily; an interstate is after all just a blue sign on a highway. It comes with fringe benefits in areas like economic development, but that is not, really, technically needed.

But, given the population of over 70,000, and the proliferation of military facilities, including Camp Lejeuene - the largest, (or second largest, depending on the year) Marine Corps base in the country, I would think that at least a freeway should be a given.

US17 between Jacksonville and New Bern would certainly require less work given that it is currently under construction to be a near-freeway as far south as Spring Hill Road, south of Maysville. The tricky part is Marine Blvd in Jacksonville. It is very heavily built up, but unlike US 70 in James City has no frontage roads so a freeway conversion would be expensive and disruptive (and probably for that reason, isn't currently planned.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 22, 2016, 06:46:49 PM
If Jacksonville needs a Interstate spur, there could be an I-x40 built along NC 53.  It is 29 miles to Jacksonville from there vs. 34 from New Bern to Jacksonville, although I could see an I-x42 built along or near US 17 if one is needed.
The most-used approach to Jacksonville is via I-40 to Warsaw and then NC 24. If folks in Jacksonville were hollering for an interstate (which I haven't heard at all) that would probably be the the route they'd be most interested in.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on November 22, 2016, 07:15:21 PM
If Jacksonville needs a Interstate spur, there could be an I-x40 built along NC 53.  It is 29 miles to Jacksonville from there vs. 34 from New Bern to Jacksonville, although I could see an I-x42 built along or near US 17 if one is needed.
The most-used approach to Jacksonville is via I-40 to Warsaw and then NC 24. If folks in Jacksonville were hollering for an interstate (which I haven't heard at all) that would probably be the the route they'd be most interested in.

If Jacksonville were to get an Interstate, they might as well upgrade NC 24 from at least Fayetteville. Sell it as an interstate that connects two of the biggest military cities in North Carolina. Make it an auxiliary of I-95. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 23, 2016, 08:08:11 AM
As for whether Jacksonville needs an interstate, not necessarily; an interstate is after all just a blue sign on a highway. It comes with fringe benefits in areas like economic development, but that is not, really, technically needed.

But, given the population of over 70,000, and the proliferation of military facilities, including Camp Lejeuene - the largest, (or second largest, depending on the year) Marine Corps base in the country, I would think that at least a freeway should be a given.

US17 between Jacksonville and New Bern would certainly require less work given that it is currently under construction to be a near-freeway as far south as Spring Hill Road, south of Maysville. The tricky part is Marine Blvd in Jacksonville. It is very heavily built up, but unlike US 70 in James City has no frontage roads so a freeway conversion would be expensive and disruptive (and probably for that reason, isn't currently planned.)

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf (http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on November 23, 2016, 09:47:53 PM
If Jacksonville needs a Interstate spur, there could be an I-x40 built along NC 53.  It is 29 miles to Jacksonville from there vs. 34 from New Bern to Jacksonville, although I could see an I-x42 built along or near US 17 if one is needed.
The most-used approach to Jacksonville is via I-40 to Warsaw and then NC 24. If folks in Jacksonville were hollering for an interstate (which I haven't heard at all) that would probably be the the route they'd be most interested in.

If Jacksonville were to get an Interstate, they might as well upgrade NC 24 from at least Fayetteville. Sell it as an interstate that connects two of the biggest military cities in North Carolina. Make it an auxiliary of I-95.

There already doing that. NC 24 from Fayetteville Nc to Clinton Nc is going to be 4 lanes. Once that is done 24 from Fayetteville to Jacksonville will be completely 4 lanes (using some of I-40 so I would use a I-X40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 24, 2016, 04:11:12 AM
If Jacksonville needs a Interstate spur, there could be an I-x40 built along NC 53.  It is 29 miles to Jacksonville from there vs. 34 from New Bern to Jacksonville, although I could see an I-x42 built along or near US 17 if one is needed.
The most-used approach to Jacksonville is via I-40 to Warsaw and then NC 24. If folks in Jacksonville were hollering for an interstate (which I haven't heard at all) that would probably be the the route they'd be most interested in.

If Jacksonville were to get an Interstate, they might as well upgrade NC 24 from at least Fayetteville. Sell it as an interstate that connects two of the biggest military cities in North Carolina. Make it an auxiliary of I-95.

There already doing that. NC 24 from Fayetteville Nc to Clinton Nc is going to be 4 lanes. Once that is done 24 from Fayetteville to Jacksonville will be completely 4 lanes (using some of I-40 so I would use a I-X40.

I do not see any indication that NC 24 is going to be on a freeway minus its duplexes with I-40 and US 17 though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2016, 06:49:37 PM
The TriEx (the NC 540 tollway west of Raleigh) was pretty much deserted when it first opened. But rush hour traffic on the road is now booming.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 12, 2016, 08:44:31 PM
The TriEx (the NC 540 tollway west of Raleigh) was pretty much deserted when it first opened. But rush hour traffic on the road is now booming.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/

Really? I'm never out that way during rush hour.  I do know that when the segment from 264 here in Knightdale to 40 in Garner opens that it will be used a lot. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 13, 2016, 07:30:10 PM
I wonder what traffic on 540 will be like when the whole beltway is completed? Hopefully the 540 toll road will be used enough to be profitable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 21, 2016, 09:48:42 PM
A follow up post on the Wil-Cox Bridge over the Yadkin River in Central North Carolina.  I was recently sent some photos from the bridge's 1924 opening. 

Today, the Wil-Cox Bridge is slowly becoming a center piece for a regional park.  In August 2015, Davidson County Commissioners agreed to take over the bridge from the state.  The state transferred the $2.5 million that would have been used to demolish the historic bridge to the county.  Those funds are being used for bridge preservation and future development of the regional park.  In 2016, Davidson County purchased nearly 14 nearby acres that included Fort York, a Confederate Fort built in the waning years of the Civil War.  Davidson County intends on unveiling a master plan for the Wil-Cox Bridge, Fort York, and the regional park early in 2017.

The photos are located on the blog at:

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2016/12/1924-wil-cox-bridge-opening-photos.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 26, 2016, 05:01:05 PM
NC 90's western endpoint is now posted...

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncends/images/nc90_wt_07.jpg)
photo by Morgan Younce

He also indicated the last mile is now paved...

More NC Ends photos were added today (about 200) at http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncends/index.htm
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 26, 2016, 10:23:50 PM
Apparently, there was another failed attempt to kill the I-77 toll lane contract during the midst of the political shitstorm that's been brewing in the General Assembly over the past 2 weeks.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article121033393.html (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article121033393.html)

Quote
Three Mecklenburg County lawmakers are trying to cancel the Interstate 77 toll contract during this week’s special legislative session, though they appear to face an uphill battle.

Democratic Rep. Tricia Cotham and Republican Reps. John Bradford and Justin Moore introduced a bill Wednesday to cancel the contract with I-77 Mobility Partners, a subsidiary of the Spanish firm Cintra. The company is building the 26-mile, $650 million project from uptown Charlotte to Mooresville.

Opponents have long criticized the project. Earlier legislative attempts to kill it have failed.

“The leadership at the General Assembly once again has the opportunity to cancel this ”˜bad deal’ of a contract,”  Cotham said Thursday. “This toll road contract is bad for taxpayers and will burden North Carolina for many years. We should support small businesses, families and those going to work everyday by canceling this project once and for all. We should listen to the people.”

Toll opponents in north Mecklenburg claimed credit for costing Republican Gov. Pat McCrory more than 20,000 votes in last month’s election. The governor lost to Democrat Roy Cooper by just over 10,000 votes.

The toll bill is not yet scheduled to be heard in this week’s special session. Cotham said that doesn’t mean it won’t be added before lawmakers adjourn.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on December 27, 2016, 01:11:06 PM
OK, how do you kill a project that is already that far along in the construction process without it costing thousands, if not millions, in wasted money and defaults? Once they start turning dirt, it's too late to stop it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on December 27, 2016, 01:34:06 PM
Given the company that's going to be running this project, they probably shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place. That 50 year non-compete doesn't help either. I don't see why NCDOT can't maintain and run those toll lanes like they're going to do on 485.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 27, 2016, 02:25:57 PM
Quote
Once they start turning dirt, it's too late to stop it.

Not true.  Plenty of examples nationwide where construction had begun and was later stopped and even cancelled.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 27, 2016, 06:49:14 PM
Given the company that's going to be running this project, they probably shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place. That 50 year non-compete doesn't help either. I don't see why NCDOT can't maintain and run those toll lanes like they're going to do on 485.

I agree. It was a bad deal to start with and it shouldn't have happened in the first place. But, according to this article, NCDOT is trying to make inprovements to the contract and incoming governor Roy Cooper also mentioned looking at alternatives. However, given the current political makeup of the General Assembly and their openly hostile attitude towards Cooper, I wouldn't expect much, if anything, to change anytime soon.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/drivers-anticipate-how-governor-elect-roy-cooper-will-handle-i-77-tolls/475978144 (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/drivers-anticipate-how-governor-elect-roy-cooper-will-handle-i-77-tolls/475978144)

Quote
Drivers who voted against Pat McCrory because he supported the I-77 tolls are anxiously waiting to see how the new governor will handle the controversial project.

"He needs to put it at the top of his list of things to do. Otherwise he's going to be a one term governor," driver Thomas Stainkamp said.

"They certainly do have my ear on this," Governor-elect Roy Cooper said.

In an exclusive interview last week, Cooper told Channel 9 he's listening to those voters.

"They certainly do have my ear on this." Cooper said, "We want to look at what the alternatives are."

On Wednesday, the head of state transportation said if Cooper is planning any changes he hasn't heard about them.

"There's been no discussion of that project," Transportation Secretary Nick Tennyson said.

Even so, there's no guarantee Tennyson would stay in his current position once Cooper takes office or what the governor-elect's final plan will be.

While the future of the project is shrouded in uncertainty, toll construction continues to move forward.

"It's on time, and the budget is a fixed cost, so whatever issue by budget wouldn't be a North Carolina Department of Transportation risk," Tennyson said.

Tennyson said he's still trying to improve the project and the contract after hearing from local mayors and officials.

 "We are in negotiations right now. Even now, I'm trying to make sure we deliver what we promised," Tennyson said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 28, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
NC 90's western endpoint is now posted...

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncends/images/nc90_wt_07.jpg)
photo by Morgan Younce

He also indicated the last mile is now paved...

More NC Ends photos were added today (about 200) at http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncends/index.htm

The west end of NC 90 has been posted and paved since at least 2010.  The 90 shield has however been changed.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2010/10/nc-90s-east-end-now-signed-and-paved.html?m=0
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 29, 2016, 04:13:07 AM
More NC Ends photos were added today (about 200) at http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncends/index.htm
Ha! I was waiting for another update, as well as one to the Virginia page
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 29, 2016, 06:15:31 PM
Quick Question.
When I-87 is designated, will I-495 be decommissioned or become an unsigned designation?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 29, 2016, 07:21:15 PM
Quick Question.
When I-87 is designated, will I-495 be decommissioned or become an unsigned designation?

Decommissioned
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on December 29, 2016, 07:36:07 PM
Quick Question.
When I-87 is designated, will I-495 be decommissioned or become an unsigned designation?

Decommissioned
Thanks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 29, 2016, 08:24:45 PM
Did you look in other threads (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17910.msg2143874#msg2143874) for the answer?

Guessing no...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 29, 2016, 09:04:09 PM
NC-540 is getting a new interchange at Old Holly Springs-Apex Rd. Maybe they should have thought of it when they built the highway 4 years ago :P.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on December 30, 2016, 09:38:35 AM
It is also getting an interchange at Morrisville Parkway, which was part of the plan from the beginning. In an unusual case of foresight, they even incorporated a bridge for Morrisville Parkway in the initial construction even though the road itself isn't even connected through there yet. But for some reason they saw fit to build only a two lane bridge... Sigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 01, 2017, 03:04:22 PM
One of the more unique features of North Carolina are the three remaining cable pulled river ferries.  The ferry crossings at each of these three locations are each over 100 years old and have a unique history and connection to the communities that surround them. On the old All Things NC! website I was able to feature the Elwell Ferry in the Southeastern part of the state.  I never got around to doing features on the other two (Sans Souci and Parker's) until now.  I have them up on my Carolina Crossroads blog:

Elwell Ferry:
http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2016/07/elwell-ferry.html

Sans Souci Ferry - located in Bertie County:
http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-second-cable-ferry-in-north.html

Parker's Ferry - located in Hertford County:
http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2017/01/parkers-ferry.html

All three ferries are free and if you live in NC or Southeastern Virginia - they are worth the day trip to check out.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 02, 2017, 06:18:58 AM
The toll rate on NC-540 increased as of yesterday.

http://www.wral.com/new-laws-bring-residents-to-nc-increase-tolls/16391263/ (http://www.wral.com/new-laws-bring-residents-to-nc-increase-tolls/16391263/)

Quote
Drivers traveling on the Triangle Expressway will be paying more beginning Sunday, as the toll rate increased 3.5 percent.

A person traveling the entire distance of the toll road, about 17 miles, will pay $3.13, up 9 cents from the previous total. Customers paying through bill-by-mail will pay $4.81, an increase of 16 cents.

Money from tolling is used to pay bonds sold to fund the highway as well as maintenance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 04, 2017, 07:47:16 AM
The I-40 Fortify project through Raleigh is supposed to be finished by the summer.

http://www.wral.com/i-40-construction-through-raleigh-should-finish-by-summer/16397042/ (http://www.wral.com/i-40-construction-through-raleigh-should-finish-by-summer/16397042/)

Quote
After about three-and-a-half years of work, the Fortify project, repairing and rebuilding travel lanes across 11.5 miles of major highway just south of downtown Raleigh, is nearing an end.

Since the summer of 2013, commuters have dealt with narrowed and shifting lanes, limited space on the shoulder and the risk that a minor fender bender could prompt a major backup.

"It is horrible," said Shabrittany Dowtin. "I almost get into a car accident every morning."

Dowtin says her Interstate 40 commute is a tight, twisted squeeze.

"I cannot merge over, and I am tired of this construction," she said.

She'll welcome the end of the road work that Steve Abbott, spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, said is in sight.

Through the rest of the winter months, crews will be working in the outside lanes of Interstate 40 through Raleigh. Drivers can expect intermittent ramp closures, Abbott said.

After that, it won't take long.

"We think you'll be back on the full road in the late spring or early summer," Abbott said.

After all lanes are open, crews will go back and add a final layer of fresh pavement. They'll do that work overnight, when fewer drivers are on the road.

Dowtin is counting down the months to a smoother ride.

After the Fortify project is complete, the DOT will turn to other big projects. In 2018, work could begin on widening I-40 through Garner and also on widening Interstate 440 in west Raleigh.

That western section of I-440 needs to be next. It needs widening in the worst way and it doesn't even meet current interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 04, 2017, 09:57:59 AM
Both the I-440 beltline in West Raleigh and I-40 in Garner are big bottlenecks. No updates to the NCDOT website for the 440 project since the alternatives were posted in late 2014 over 2 years ago. There were some things in the plan that I liked (Converting the 440/Wade interchange to have high speed flyovers,  braided ramps in multiple places), and others that I did not like (DDI at Western Blvd - with the new BRT plan for Raleigh, the K-Mart will be one of the best redevelopment sites in the city, and DDIs are far too pedestrian-hostile.)

They were also considering daylighting Walnut Creek near Lake Johnson, depending on the results of a hydrological study. Not sure what came of it, but it if so it would be great for greenway connectivity between Raleigh and Cary. I also made a comment that they should include a greenway along the east side of it connecting from Lake Johnson at least as far as Western Blvd and possibly as far as the Reed Creek greenway on the campus of Meredith College. Such a greenway is in the City of Raleigh's master plan. I would expect the City to pay at least some extra for this betterment, but building it at the same time as the highway would certainly make it less expensive and allow for a better design.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2017, 05:04:10 PM
That section of I-440 reminds me of a NYC Parkway every time I drive it. Whats amusing is that various signs for Exit 2 have been missing for years and nobody seems to get around to replacing them. I'm actually surprised there are crosswalks in the Western Blvd. interchange, seems dangerous given the lack of sight lines for exiting traffic off of I-440.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: broadhurst04 on January 04, 2017, 05:35:51 PM
The I-40 Fortify project through Raleigh is supposed to be finished by the summer.

http://www.wral.com/i-40-construction-through-raleigh-should-finish-by-summer/16397042/ (http://www.wral.com/i-40-construction-through-raleigh-should-finish-by-summer/16397042/)

Quote
After about three-and-a-half years of work, the Fortify project, repairing and rebuilding travel lanes across 11.5 miles of major highway just south of downtown Raleigh, is nearing an end.

Since the summer of 2013, commuters have dealt with narrowed and shifting lanes, limited space on the shoulder and the risk that a minor fender bender could prompt a major backup.

"It is horrible," said Shabrittany Dowtin. "I almost get into a car accident every morning."

Dowtin says her Interstate 40 commute is a tight, twisted squeeze.

"I cannot merge over, and I am tired of this construction," she said.

She'll welcome the end of the road work that Steve Abbott, spokesman for the North Carolina Department of Transportation, said is in sight.

Through the rest of the winter months, crews will be working in the outside lanes of Interstate 40 through Raleigh. Drivers can expect intermittent ramp closures, Abbott said.

After that, it won't take long.

"We think you'll be back on the full road in the late spring or early summer," Abbott said.

After all lanes are open, crews will go back and add a final layer of fresh pavement. They'll do that work overnight, when fewer drivers are on the road.

Dowtin is counting down the months to a smoother ride.

After the Fortify project is complete, the DOT will turn to other big projects. In 2018, work could begin on widening I-40 through Garner and also on widening Interstate 440 in west Raleigh.

That western section of I-440 needs to be next. It needs widening in the worst way and it doesn't even meet current interstate standards.

That part of 440 was never designed as an Interstate to begin with. It was originally built as a US 1 bypass of Raleigh in the early 1960s. Good thing NCDOT applied for the Interstate designation years ago. If they tried it now, it would have to be labeled "Future" until upgrades were completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 04, 2017, 05:44:55 PM
Gov. Roy Cooper has named Jim Trogdon as the new NCDOT secretary.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/gov-roy-cooper-names-ncdot-environmental-secretaries/480886848 (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/gov-roy-cooper-names-ncdot-environmental-secretaries/480886848)

Quote
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper has announced two more cabinet appointments as he builds his team to lead the state over the next four years.

He named Jim Trogdon as North Carolina Department of Transportation secretary, a high-profile role because of the controversy surrounding the I-77 toll lanes between Mooresville and Charlotte.

Trogdon served as the chief operating officer for the DOT before his retirement in 2013 and as director of strategic transportation planning for the North Carolina General Assembly.

He helped to drive several major initiatives during his time at the state DOT, which included reshaping the department’s funding formula to a more data-driven approach to create more jobs and make better use of existing funds during the 2013 legislative session.

“Jim Trogdon knows North Carolina’s transportation successes and challenges better than anyone, and he will bring technical know-how and smart solutions to the job,”  Cooper said. “Our state’s growing population and business climate need good roads and smart mass transit, and he will lead the way.”

Trogdon's most recent role was serving as national transportation director for SAS.

Ties to tolls

After stepping down from NCDOT in 2013, Trogdon joined Atkins as vice president of regional business development and sales for the U. S. mid-Atlantic region.

Atkins is an engineering firm that works with P3 projects- public and private partnerships to build things like toll lanes.

Atkins has close ties with Cintra, the group has worked on the Port Mann Bridge/Highway in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and Texas State Highway 130 (SH 130) in Austin, Texas.

SH 130 Concession Company, a subsidiary of Cintra, recently declared bankruptcy on its toll lane project, a project similar to the I-77 Express Lanes in Lake Norman.

While serving with Atkins, Trogdon penned an article called "To Toll or Not To Toll."

"Tolling appears superior to all other options," Trogdon argues. "Degraded trip reliability, congestion and lost productivity appear more costly than tolls. In short, tolling proved beneficial to those who value their time."

Trogdon formerly served on the Board of Directors for the Alliance of Toll Interoperability. The North Carolina Toll Authority is a member of ATI.

Trogden has spoken at conferences held by the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association. The IBTTA calls itself an "alliance of toll operators and associated industries." He also previously served on the IBTTA's board of directors.

Widen I-77 responds

Trogdon has a history with anti-toll group Widen I-77.

In 2013 when the toll battle was beginning, Trogdon and Widen I-77 leader Kurt Naas exchanged a series of emails.

Naas emailed Trogdon about comments Trogdon made at a public information session in Huntersville. In an email back to Naas, Trogdon discussed his support of toll lanes on all NC interstates.

"My perspective on why express lanes should be, how we add future capacity to all our interstates is founded on a strategic view of population growth and the reality of declining revenue over the next two to three decades with the status quo approach," he wrote.

Naas told Channel 9 he is disappointed with Cooper's selection but hopes Trogdon's opinion on the I-77 project has evolved since 2013.

"We hope that he's had a chance to look at this contract, see how it doesn't work for the residents of this area and reconsider his position," Naas said.

Naas said he looks forward to working with Trogdon. He's encouraging toll opponents to continue to put pressure on Governor Cooper to cancel the contract.

Cooper's team responds

In response to questions from Eyewitness News Reporter Joe Bruno, a spokesperson for Cooper said Trogdon will serve at the pleasure of the governor.

The spokesperson said as Attorney General, Cooper repeatedly said he would not have signed the contract.

When asked if Cooper's position on I-77 tolls has changed, the spokesperson responded, "No."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 05, 2017, 11:16:16 AM
NCDOT has released its Draft 2017-2027 State TIP:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426)

One interesting thing I found is that two projects announced last year that they would get funding and proceed in 2022, the upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards between Rockingham and Laurinburg and the start of construction of the rest of the I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass, are not listed as such. The first is only listed as a feasibility study and the other is listed as unfunded after 2027.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on January 05, 2017, 03:39:55 PM
NCDOT has released its Draft 2017-2027 State TIP:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426)

One interesting thing I found is that two projects announced last year that they would get funding and proceed in 2022, the upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards between Rockingham and Laurinburg and the start of construction of the rest of the I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass, are not listed as such. The first is only listed as a feasibility study and the other is listed as unfunded after 2027.

According to this (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/EXPLANATIONS_REPORT_DraftSTIP_January2017.pdf), On Page 11 for the Rockingham Bypass it says "BASED ON RESULTS OF P4.0, RIGHT OF WAY AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SEGMENT "A" DELAYED FROM FY 22 TO UNFUNDED"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 05, 2017, 09:08:54 PM
NCDOT has released its Draft 2017-2027 State TIP:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426)

One interesting thing I found is that two projects announced last year that they would get funding and proceed in 2022, the upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards between Rockingham and Laurinburg and the start of construction of the rest of the I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass, are not listed as such. The first is only listed as a feasibility study and the other is listed as unfunded after 2027.

Other items of note:

Added was widening of US 17 between NC 171 and where the 4-lane ends south of Williamston, construction starts in 2022
Widening of US 158 between NC 34 and NC 168, construction starts 2025
New route from the I-95/NC 46 interchange east and incorporating into a US 158 BYpass of Jackson, construction starts in 2020
Convert two at-grades to interchanges on US 17 in Perquimans Co; construction starts 2025
US 70 new freeway from La Grange to Dover, Segment C; construction starts 2025
US 70 convert to Freeway from SR 1124 Grantham Rd to Havelock Bypass location; construction starts 2027
US 70 convert to interchange: JIM SUTTON ROAD/WILLIE MEASLEY ROAD in Lenoir Co; construction starts 2025
NC 11 upgrade to interstate standard from SW Greenville Bypass to proposed NC 148 location; ROW in 2027
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Segment B; construction starts 2021
US 17 at NC 211 interchange; construction starts 2026
US 17 at north end of Jacksonville bypass, partial interchange with 17 Bus; construction starts 2026
I-95 at US 70 Bus upgrade interchange; construction starts 2019
I-95 at US 701/NC 96 interchange rebuild; ROW in 2026
NC 540 from US 401 to I-40 construction moved up to 2020
NC 540 from I-40 to US 64/264; construction starts 2027
US 117 new route and interchange LEE'S COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TO OLD SMITH CHAPEL ROAD; construction starts 2026
US 70 upgrade to freeway from US 70 Byp Goldsboro to SR 1229; construction starts 2026
I-40 6-laning from I-85 to NC 147 Segment A delayed past 2027; segment AC construction starts 2023
I-40 managed lanes from US 15/501 to Wade Ave Segment A delayed to construction starts 2026; segment B ROW delayed past 2027
I-40/US 1-64 interchange rebuild construction starts 2022
NC 540 from NC 55 to US 401 delayed to 2020
Widen NC 87 from Elizabethtown to US 74-76; construction starts 2027
New interchanges for US 74 in Columbus Co: BOardman Rd; Old Lake Rd; Chauncy Town Rd; construction starts 2025
Spring Lake Bypass moved up to 2023
I-85 new interchange with SR 1113 High Point delayed past 2027
Death valley Improvements in Greensboro; construction starts 2024
I-40 new interchange with Macy Grove Rd in Guilford Co; construction starts 2026
widen US 64 from I-85 to Asheboro, segments CA and DA; construction starts 2027
widen NC 24-27 from NC 73 to Troy; construction starts 2022
widen US 15-501 from Laurinburg to US 1; construction starts 2027
Superstreeting US 1-15-501 in Sanford area; construction starts 2026
widen US 15-401 from Laurinburg to SC; construction starts 2027
rerouting US 1 in Rockingham; construction starts 2024
NC 452 segment EA starts 2024; segments B, CA, CB, D starts 2027
I-77 managed lanes from I-485 to I-277 segments A, B, E moved up to 2027
US 74 managed lanes from Outer Loop to Idlewild moved up to 2020
Wilkesboro/N Wilkesboro Bypass (new route) from NC 18 to US 421; construction starts 2025
I-85 8-laning from US 321 to NC 273 moved up to 2021
I-77 new interchange at Cornelius Rd; construction starts 2024
US 74 new Shelby Bypass, segments D and E construction starts 2021
I-26 Connector - segments moved up to 2020
US 74 Corridor K delayed to past 2027
widen US 64 from NC 141 to Hayesville; ROW in 2025

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on January 06, 2017, 11:24:23 AM
NCDOT has released its Draft 2017-2027 State TIP:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13426)

One interesting thing I found is that two projects announced last year that they would get funding and proceed in 2022, the upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards between Rockingham and Laurinburg and the start of construction of the rest of the I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass, are not listed as such. The first is only listed as a feasibility study and the other is listed as unfunded after 2027.

Other items of note:

Added was widening of US 17 between NC 171 and where the 4-lane ends south of Williamston, construction starts in 2022
Widening of US 158 between NC 34 and NC 168, construction starts 2025
New route from the I-95/NC 46 interchange east and incorporating into a US 158 BYpass of Jackson, construction starts in 2020
Convert two at-grades to interchanges on US 17 in Perquimans Co; construction starts 2025
US 70 new freeway from La Grange to Dover, Segment C; construction starts 2025
US 70 convert to Freeway from SR 1124 Grantham Rd to Havelock Bypass location; construction starts 2027
US 70 convert to interchange: JIM SUTTON ROAD/WILLIE MEASLEY ROAD in Lenoir Co; construction starts 2025
NC 11 upgrade to interstate standard from SW Greenville Bypass to proposed NC 148 location; ROW in 2027
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Segment B; construction starts 2021
US 17 at NC 211 interchange; construction starts 2026
US 17 at north end of Jacksonville bypass, partial interchange with 17 Bus; construction starts 2026
I-95 at US 70 Bus upgrade interchange; construction starts 2019
I-95 at US 701/NC 96 interchange rebuild; ROW in 2026
NC 540 from US 401 to I-40 construction moved up to 2020
NC 540 from I-40 to US 64/264; construction starts 2027
US 117 new route and interchange LEE'S COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TO OLD SMITH CHAPEL ROAD; construction starts 2026
US 70 upgrade to freeway from US 70 Byp Goldsboro to SR 1229; construction starts 2026
I-40 6-laning from I-85 to NC 147 Segment A delayed past 2027; segment AC construction starts 2023
I-40 managed lanes from US 15/501 to Wade Ave Segment A delayed to construction starts 2026; segment B ROW delayed past 2027
I-40/US 1-64 interchange rebuild construction starts 2022
NC 540 from NC 55 to US 401 delayed to 2020
Widen NC 87 from Elizabethtown to US 74-76; construction starts 2027
New interchanges for US 74 in Columbus Co: BOardman Rd; Old Lake Rd; Chauncy Town Rd; construction starts 2025
Spring Lake Bypass moved up to 2023
I-85 new interchange with SR 1113 High Point delayed past 2027
Death valley Improvements in Greensboro; construction starts 2024
I-40 new interchange with Macy Grove Rd in Guilford Co; construction starts 2026
widen US 64 from I-85 to Asheboro, segments CA and DA; construction starts 2027
widen NC 24-27 from NC 73 to Troy; construction starts 2022
widen US 15-501 from Laurinburg to US 1; construction starts 2027
Superstreeting US 1-15-501 in Sanford area; construction starts 2026
widen US 15-401 from Laurinburg to SC; construction starts 2027
rerouting US 1 in Rockingham; construction starts 2024
NC 452 segment EA starts 2024; segments B, CA, CB, D starts 2027
I-77 managed lanes from I-485 to I-277 segments A, B, E moved up to 2027
US 74 managed lanes from Outer Loop to Idlewild moved up to 2020
Wilkesboro/N Wilkesboro Bypass (new route) from NC 18 to US 421; construction starts 2025
I-85 8-laning from US 321 to NC 273 moved up to 2021
I-77 new interchange at Cornelius Rd; construction starts 2024
US 74 new Shelby Bypass, segments D and E construction starts 2021
I-26 Connector - segments moved up to 2020
US 74 Corridor K delayed to past 2027
widen US 64 from NC 141 to Hayesville; ROW in 2025

In addition to your list, another interesting project to me is the second phase of the Statesville Interchange project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 06, 2017, 10:53:01 PM
I'll be a broken record:  as a daily traveler of I-40, I am disappointed to see the lack of upgrades especially between Exit 116 and around MP 135, rush hour there is a mess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 13, 2017, 07:36:50 AM
NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract for the new NC-12 Rodanthe Bridge.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/12/ncdot-awards-contract-to-design-build-new-rodanthe-bridge/ (http://wnct.com/2017/01/12/ncdot-awards-contract-to-design-build-new-rodanthe-bridge/)

Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to design and build a new bridge for N.C. 12.

The 2.4 mile-long “jug handle”  bridge will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

Transportation officials say the new bridge is a long-term solution to keep vulnerable N.C. 12 open amidst looming threats of storm damage.

“This critical highway connection is another major milestone for the Outer Banks,”  acting transportation secretary Mike Holder said. “This new bridge will eliminate travel disruptions caused by beach erosion and storm breaches that have resulted in access issues at one of the most vulnerable sections of N.C. 12 for years.”

The Federal Highway Administration issued the last environmental document for the project in December, which gives final approval for construction to move forward.

The winning design-build team is Flatiron Constructors, Inc., of Broomfield, Colo., who submitted a bid of $145,336,271.

“We are excited that this long-awaited project will finally begin,”  said division engineer Jerry Jennings. “It’s great news for the people who live, work and visit the Outer Banks via N.C.12.  It’s been a long-time coming and we are anxious to get started.”

Design and permitting is expected to take about a year to complete. Construction will begin afterwards, and could start as early as January 2018.

Based on Flatiron’s schedule, the bridge is expected to open to traffic by early summer 2020, about a year earlier than the NCDOT’s previously anticipated completion date.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 14, 2017, 07:12:38 PM
NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract for the new NC-12 Rodanthe Bridge.

http://wnct.com/2017/01/12/ncdot-awards-contract-to-design-build-new-rodanthe-bridge/ (http://wnct.com/2017/01/12/ncdot-awards-contract-to-design-build-new-rodanthe-bridge/)

Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has awarded a contract to design and build a new bridge for N.C. 12.

The 2.4 mile-long “jug handle”  bridge will extend from the southern end of the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge over the Pamlico Sound into Rodanthe.

Transportation officials say the new bridge is a long-term solution to keep vulnerable N.C. 12 open amidst looming threats of storm damage.

“This critical highway connection is another major milestone for the Outer Banks,”  acting transportation secretary Mike Holder said. “This new bridge will eliminate travel disruptions caused by beach erosion and storm breaches that have resulted in access issues at one of the most vulnerable sections of N.C. 12 for years.”

The Federal Highway Administration issued the last environmental document for the project in December, which gives final approval for construction to move forward.

The winning design-build team is Flatiron Constructors, Inc., of Broomfield, Colo., who submitted a bid of $145,336,271.

“We are excited that this long-awaited project will finally begin,”  said division engineer Jerry Jennings. “It’s great news for the people who live, work and visit the Outer Banks via N.C.12.  It’s been a long-time coming and we are anxious to get started.”

Design and permitting is expected to take about a year to complete. Construction will begin afterwards, and could start as early as January 2018.

Based on Flatiron’s schedule, the bridge is expected to open to traffic by early summer 2020, about a year earlier than the NCDOT’s previously anticipated completion date.
If anyone out there is unsure about Climate Change, or at least about Sea Level Rise, here is evidence for you. The sea is washing the Outer Banks out from under NC 12, and NCDOT is forced to surrender.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on January 14, 2017, 09:44:11 PM
If anyone out there is unsure about Climate Change, or at least about Sea Level Rise, here is evidence for you. The sea is washing the Outer Banks out from under NC 12, and NCDOT is forced to surrender.

This has to do with storm surges, not anything permanent and incremental.

And this has been going on for decades, even back in the 1970s when there was as much paranoia and hype about a new ice age coming as there is now about global warming. We vacationed at the Outer Banks several times in the 60s and 70s, and I remember abandoned and relocated stretches of NC 12 even back then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 14, 2017, 09:57:38 PM
Most barrier islands in the southeast are slowly moving westward which is a function of erosion and not climate change.  This is why Hatteras Lighthouse had to be moved inland.

Evidence of sea level rise can be found in Norfolk Va where tidal flooding is much worse than it used to be.

NC 12 and the road before it have been regularly washed out by storms back many, many decades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CtrlAltDel on January 15, 2017, 12:03:11 AM
And this has been going on for decades, even back in the 1970s when there was as much paranoia and hype about a new ice age coming as there is now about global warming.

I know this is off-topic, but this is one of those things that bothers me. While there was some concern in the ’70s about global cooling, even then, the bulk of scientific work on climate was related to warming.

Past that, though, I agree that the NC-12 issue is not primarily related to this, but to other things.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 15, 2017, 06:40:01 PM
Most barrier islands in the southeast are slowly moving westward which is a function of erosion and not climate change.  This is why Hatteras Lighthouse had to be moved inland.

Evidence of sea level rise can be found in Norfolk Va where tidal flooding is much worse than it used to be.

NC 12 and the road before it have been regularly washed out by storms back many, many decades.
It is true that the Outer Banks have been moving steadily westward for many centuries as the sea level rises relative to the beach level. This is because the North Carolina coast (and most of the southeastern coast) is subsiding as a result of long-term geological forces. However, the rate of sea level rise has accelerated markedly since 1900, it is continuing to increase, and this is due to climate change. The state has a chart illustrating the increase:
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-management-hot-topics/sea-level-rise#4
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on January 16, 2017, 08:12:11 PM
Signs for 785 are now up on 40 through Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 16, 2017, 09:54:45 PM
Signs for 785 are now up on 40 through Greensboro.

Meanwhile, the "Future I-785" signs on US-29 around Danville seem to have disappeared.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 16, 2017, 10:54:45 PM
Signs for 785 are now up on 40 through Greensboro.

Meanwhile, the "Future I-785" signs on US-29 around Danville seem to have disappeared.

So is I-785 dead then in VA? One would think Danville would want I-785 as much as Martinsville wants I-73 but recently I haven't heard anything at all regarding future interstate. Does NC plan to finish upgrading US-29 anytime soon? Didn't see it in NCDOTs 2017-2027 draft
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2017, 06:20:49 AM
Signs for 785 are now up on 40 through Greensboro.

Meanwhile, the "Future I-785" signs on US-29 around Danville seem to have disappeared.

So is I-785 dead then in VA? One would think Danville would want I-785 as much as Martinsville wants I-73 but recently I haven't heard anything at all regarding future interstate. Does NC plan to finish upgrading US-29 anytime soon? Didn't see it in NCDOTs 2017-2027 draft

Until NC finishes it's part of I-785, then I think it's safe to say I-785 is dead in VA. US-29 around Danville doesn't meet interstate standards and there are no plans by VDOT to do any upgrades. Some of the acceleration ramp merges are too short and need lengthening and there is an at-grade RIRO at Elizabeth Street that needs to either be closed or have the road grade separated. I don't know of any plans by NCDOT to upgrade US-29.

As far as I know, Danville would still like to have I-785, but they're not jumping head over hills for it the way Martinsville has for I-73. I guess after seeing Martinsville get it's hopes up only to have them crushed time and again, Danville knows not to expect much (if anything) anytime soon.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of I-785 because I don't think it will do much for the region. Southside VA is economically dead and the only new interstate that would be worth it IMO would be an extension of I-83 from Baltimore to Greensboro and that ain't happening.

Eastern NC tends to get a lot of flak due to the fact that they gained 3 new future interstates (I-42, I-87, I-587) and a future extension of an existing one (I-795) all within years' time, but while that region is definitely economically depressed, it's nowhere as dead as southside VA. I see no issue with the region having those interstates, though I certainly understand criticism of I-87 due to it's routing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on January 17, 2017, 09:16:27 AM
I'm curious, does NC actually have an intention of finishing 785? It seems like if they're not going to do it anytime soon, why even sign it on the Greensboro Loop?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2017, 10:00:00 AM
I'm curious, does NC actually have an intention of finishing 785? It seems like if they're not going to do it anytime soon, why even sign it on the Greensboro Loop?

Yes, NCDOT does intend to finish I-785. It's just not a high priority for them right now.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on January 17, 2017, 10:29:48 AM
Heh.  Makes me wonder how low on the list it is, then.  If it has become like the Rooftop on NY, might as well be never.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 18, 2017, 11:50:09 AM
I'm curious, does NC actually have an intention of finishing 785? It seems like if they're not going to do it anytime soon, why even sign it on the Greensboro Loop?

Yes, NCDOT does intend to finish I-785. It's just not a high priority for them right now.
Agreed. Why they couldn't wait until the next section of the Loop to US 29 is completed is unknown. Hopefully, not too many drivers will get lost trying to get to Danville using the Loop exit for the next year or so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 18, 2017, 04:08:15 PM
They should have left 785 unposted until the upgrades along US 29 were completed. Whether that will ever happen or not is likely up in the air.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 18, 2017, 10:46:00 PM
I'm curious, does NC actually have an intention of finishing 785? It seems like if they're not going to do it anytime soon, why even sign it on the Greensboro Loop?

Yes, NCDOT does intend to finish I-785. It's just not a high priority for them right now.
Agreed. Why they couldn't wait until the next section of the Loop to US 29 is completed is unknown. Hopefully, not too many drivers will get lost trying to get to Danville using the Loop exit for the next year or so.
Here's a photo of one of the new signs courtesy of AARoads On The Road blog:
(https://www.aaroads.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/nc/i-040_eb_at_i-785.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 19, 2017, 06:00:13 AM
My guess is that most people travelling through this area going to Danville would have already passed exit 223 (US 29 North) first anyway, and technically the off-ramp from I-840 does direct traffic to US 29 via US 70.

What's going to be fun is when they put the signs up south/westbound (if you look at the opposite side of this junction in real life, you'll see new gantry assemblies going up in prep for new signs).

Speaking of Greensboro, what was the point of putting a LEFT banner on the Randleman Road exit eastbound? Everything else in that area has been unchanged since 2010 or before.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 19, 2017, 03:37:00 PM
Why isn't Interstate 840 posted on that sign? Are they waiting for more of the freeway loop to be completed so they can add it on later?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 19, 2017, 03:42:43 PM
Why isn't Interstate 840 posted on that sign? Are they waiting for more of the freeway loop to be completed so they can add it on later?

Probably and now that you mention it, that may be why NCDOT is signing it only as I-785, that way the road would have a signed designation while the rest of I-840 gets built. That's just my 2 cents, anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 19, 2017, 09:19:56 PM
Why isn't Interstate 840 posted on that sign? Are they waiting for more of the freeway loop to be completed so they can add it on later?

Probably and now that you mention it, that may be why NCDOT is signing it only as I-785, that way the road would have a signed designation while the rest of I-840 gets built. That's just my 2 cents, anyway.



Less confusion for the drivers, and both sections of I-840 is still disconnected and will be for some time until 2020. It makes sense to sign one section as I-73/I-840 while the other section as I-785 only until both sections of I-840 is built and connected with each other and then the I-840 signing will be added to the eastern Loop; and since I-785 is a odd numbered spur, it makes sense to sign it along the eastern Loop up to US 70 and then US 29 even if NCDOT is putting off upgrading US 29 to interstate standards until well after the Loop is built.

Nothing is wrong with what NCDOT is doing (they are doing the same thing you see with many other odd spur routes all over America and I am fine with I-785 being signed on the eastern part of the Loop for time being.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 20, 2017, 07:27:59 PM
Driverless cars are going to be tested on the Triangle Expressway.

http://www.wral.com/driverless-cars-to-be-tested-on-wake-toll-road/16453203/ (http://www.wral.com/driverless-cars-to-be-tested-on-wake-toll-road/16453203/)

Quote
The Triangle Expressway toll road in western Wake County will served as a proving ground to test driverless cars, officials said Friday.

The U.S. Department of Transportation recently designated the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, which operates the toll road, from more than 60 applicants for one of 10 pilot sites to test automated vehicle technologies.

"The Triangle Expressway, with its access to three Tier 1 research universities and the largest research park in North America, make it the ideal location for this pilot program," Turnpike Authority Executive Director Beau Memory said in a statement. "As safety is our No. 1 priority, we believe this opportunity will allow us to learn how to best keep our customers safe with this emerging technology."

No details about who is conducting the tests or when they will be done were released.

National transportation officials said the 10 sites have different facilities that can be used to gauge safety, manage various roadways and conditions and handle various types of vehicles.

In addition to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, other designees include the following:

City of Pittsburgh and the Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute

Texas AV Proving Grounds Partnership

U.S. Army Aberdeen Test Center

American Center for Mobility (ACM) at Willow Run
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) & GoMentum Station

San Diego Association of Governments

Iowa City Area Development Group

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Central Florida Automated Vehicle Partners
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 26, 2017, 10:04:54 AM
President Trump's infrastructure priority list actually includes I-95 in North Carolina as the #5 national priority. I understand the current list is not intended to be set-in-stone policy, but I find it interesting and somewhat telling that North Carolina's section of I-95 is recognized to be such a problem that it gets such a high priority on the national level.

The project is listed as "Repairs" to I-95 in NC with a cost of $1.5 billion. I've read that a complete upgrade and widening of I-95 in NC from border to border would be in the range of $4.5 billion, so I wonder exactly what these "Repairs" would involve. Surely a complete rebuild from Kenly to Fayetteville should be the top priority because it's both the oldest and most heavily traveled section, including a high percentage of commercial trucks. The entire stretch from Rocky Mount to Fayetteville could use at least one extra lane in each direction, I'd say. Also, given that Trump is highly focused on PPPs to leverage private funding to build infrastructure, it will be interesting to see if this plan involves tolls (or, alternatively, toll lanes.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on January 26, 2017, 10:09:08 AM
Add to that a $4 billion plan to widen I-95 in SC, and this could be a worthwhile project for drivers going anywhere from Savannah to Miami.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 26, 2017, 02:02:58 PM
When road projects get into the billions, you likely have to use tolls. I doubt the amount raised from traditional sources of income would be sufficient to cover such extensive projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 26, 2017, 04:18:02 PM
Tolls are coming. There is no way to avoid this. Seems like to build/improve a road can get the price tag up to billions or probably more.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 26, 2017, 05:22:09 PM
The last time the idea to toll I-95 was brought up, there was massive opposition from truckers and cities/towns, which largely got the proposal killed. I-95 runs through some of the poorest areas of the state, which would mean political suicide for any local politician to be in favor of tolls. There was also concern from the towns/cities that traffic would use US-301 as a shunpike route, since the road wasn't designed to carry the kind of traffic I-95 has, and were worried that shunpike traffic on US-301 would clog up local roads.

New toll lanes on I-95 might happen, but tolling all of it? I don't see it happening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 31, 2017, 09:30:32 PM
NCDOT is hosting a public meeting next Monday to discuss a new proposed interchange on I-95 at Sunset Avenue in Rocky Mount.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/01/31/Meeting-to-discuss-new-I-95-interchange.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/01/31/Meeting-to-discuss-new-I-95-interchange.html)

Quote
Anyone wanting to voice their opinion about the proposed Interstate 95 interchange at Sunset Avenue will get their chance next week.

The N.C. Transportation Department is hosting a public meeting from 4 to 7 p.m. Monday in Brown Auditorium at Nash Community College.

The interchange is meant to provide improved access to I-95 in support of economic development in Rocky Mount. Ramps will be added to the Sunset Avenue overpass along with widening Sunset Avenue to four lanes with a median between Old Carriage and Halifax roads.

NCDOT expects to complete the Categorical Exclusion environmental document in April 2017. Acquisition of right-of-way should begin in April 2019. The project is scheduled for construction in 2021.

Interested residents can attend the open meeting at anytime. NCDOT representatives will be on hand to answer questions. No formal presentations will be made.

Auxiliary aids and services will be provided for disabled people. Anyone requiring special services should contact Caitlyn Ridge, public involvement officer with NC DOT Human Environmental Section, via email at ceridge1@ncdot.gov or by phone at 919-707-6091 as early as possible so arrangements can be made.

People who don't speak English or have a limited ability to read may receive interpretive services by calling 1-800-481-6494.

Anyone who wants to provide a comment but cannot attend the meeting can visit www.ncdot.gov and learn how to provide a statement online, via email or phone. Comments will be accepted until Feb. 21.

For more information, contact project engineer Jay McInnis at 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 or by phone at 919-707-6029 or via email at jmcinnis@ncdot.gov.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 31, 2017, 09:38:28 PM
NCDOT is hosting a public meeting next Monday to discuss a new proposed interchange on I-95 at Sunset Avenue in Rocky Mount.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/01/31/Meeting-to-discuss-new-I-95-interchange.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2017/01/31/Meeting-to-discuss-new-I-95-interchange.html)

Quote
Anyone wanting to voice their opinion about the proposed Interstate 95 interchange at Sunset Avenue will get their chance next week.

The N.C. Transportation Department is hosting a public meeting from 4 to 7 p.m. Monday in Brown Auditorium at Nash Community College.

The interchange is meant to provide improved access to I-95 in support of economic development in Rocky Mount. Ramps will be added to the Sunset Avenue overpass along with widening Sunset Avenue to four lanes with a median between Old Carriage and Halifax roads.

NCDOT expects to complete the Categorical Exclusion environmental document in April 2017. Acquisition of right-of-way should begin in April 2019. The project is scheduled for construction in 2021.

Interested residents can attend the open meeting at anytime. NCDOT representatives will be on hand to answer questions. No formal presentations will be made.

Auxiliary aids and services will be provided for disabled people. Anyone requiring special services should contact Caitlyn Ridge, public involvement officer with NC DOT Human Environmental Section, via email at ceridge1@ncdot.gov or by phone at 919-707-6091 as early as possible so arrangements can be made.

People who don't speak English or have a limited ability to read may receive interpretive services by calling 1-800-481-6494.

Anyone who wants to provide a comment but cannot attend the meeting can visit www.ncdot.gov and learn how to provide a statement online, via email or phone. Comments will be accepted until Feb. 21.

For more information, contact project engineer Jay McInnis at 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 or by phone at 919-707-6029 or via email at jmcinnis@ncdot.gov.

Oooo, I just may on my way home from work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2017, 10:41:29 AM
Not mentioned in the article, but this project would require NCDOT to submit an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) to FHWA.  In short, they need to convince FHWA that the project would A) be a full, logical interchange, and B) not have a detrimental impact on I-95 travel.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 01, 2017, 02:28:43 PM
I've done an analysis of I-95 traffic volumes and posted it in the I-95 SC thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 01, 2017, 02:49:11 PM
Not mentioned in the article, but this project would require NCDOT to submit an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) to FHWA.  In short, they need to convince FHWA that the project would A) be a full, logical interchange, and B) not have a detrimental impact on I-95 travel.

I don't think it would be too difficult to do, IMO. From points south, there's no direct access to Rocky Mount from I-95 without having to get on US-64 and using one of it's exits. Also, depending on what the final interchange design is, I can't imagine that a new interchange would cause significant problems for I-95 traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on February 01, 2017, 10:07:10 PM
President Trump's infrastructure priority list actually includes I-95 in North Carolina as the #5 national priority. I understand the current list is not intended to be set-in-stone policy, but I find it interesting and somewhat telling that North Carolina's section of I-95 is recognized to be such a problem that it gets such a high priority on the national level.

The project is listed as "Repairs" to I-95 in NC with a cost of $1.5 billion. I've read that a complete upgrade and widening of I-95 in NC from border to border would be in the range of $4.5 billion, so I wonder exactly what these "Repairs" would involve. Surely a complete rebuild from Kenly to Fayetteville should be the top priority because it's both the oldest and most heavily traveled section, including a high percentage of commercial trucks. The entire stretch from Rocky Mount to Fayetteville could use at least one extra lane in each direction, I'd say. Also, given that Trump is highly focused on PPPs to leverage private funding to build infrastructure, it will be interesting to see if this plan involves tolls (or, alternatively, toll lanes.)

Don't forget the "Carolina Connector" intermodal terminal CSX wants to build on the A line just north of Rocky Mount.   While it may reduce some truck traffic on other areas of I-95, it is likely to increase truck traffic in this area as truck to rail transfers are made.  The idea is more container traffic from the NC ports.   It may work for CSX shipping out of Wilmington, but tracks may still be the way to go between the terminal and Morehead City (on the NS line). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 05, 2017, 11:00:26 AM
Sometimes a non-roadgeek trip leads to a roadgeek discovery.  That's what happened when our family went to the Greensboro Children's Museum yesterday.  On the route, we came across the stub end of Murrow Blvd at Gate City Blvd (former NC 6). Some research shows that there was supposed to be an urban expressway paralleling what was then Lee St. to the south and continuing on to the Coliseum Area.  Not much is really known about this extension - or how far it was in planning - or what killed it. Some assumptions can be made on  why the project never made it through - however, I'd love to know more.

I've blogged about it here: http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/02/trying-to-figure-out-what-happened-to.html

if anyone has any additional information - let me know!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 05, 2017, 06:26:19 PM
If you have time to go to and thumb through a Greensboro library, the two relevant years for planning purposes were 1967 and 1977.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on February 05, 2017, 06:57:30 PM
If you have time to go to and thumb through a Greensboro library, the two relevant years for planning purposes were 1967 and 1977.

The bridges are dated 1967, so there has to be an older plan.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 05, 2017, 11:10:07 PM
It's funny, I lived in Greensboro for fifteen years before starting college (and my parents lived there for another fifteen) and never knew about Murrow Blvd's history at that T-intersection.

I guess my roadgeeking interests weren't around as long as I thought.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on February 06, 2017, 12:24:56 PM
Every time I go to Greensboro (Admittedly not that often) I am astonished by how many arterial grade separations, interchanges, and small-scale expressways there are in the central part of the city. Like Murrow, O'Henry, Freeman Mill, Patterson, Aycock, Lawndale, Bryan boulevard,etc. They do make getting around the city quicker, but they do seem to make barriers on the other hand. I have to wonder, how many of these were planned before the part of town they are in was built (in which case, the barrier effect isn't so bad) and how many of them were built by more or less taking existing roads and neighborhoods and upgrading them through eminent domain.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 09, 2017, 09:04:47 AM
The court battle over the I-77 toll lane project continues.

http://m.wbtv.com/wbtv/db_330726/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=GOVCBupv (http://m.wbtv.com/wbtv/db_330726/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=GOVCBupv)

Quote
An attorney for the North Carolina Department of Transportation conceded the purpose of the I-77 toll lanes was not to alleviate congestion on the crowded highway corridor.

Special Deputy Attorney General Scott Slusser made the statement in an argument before the North Carolina Court of Appeals on Wednesday.

Slusser was responding to a question from Judge Lucy Inman about what the public purpose of the toll lanes along I-77 is.

In response to Inman’s question, Slusser said the purpose of the lanes is to “provide reliable travel time”  to drivers on the highway and side-stepped a question about whether the lanes were meant to reduce congestion on the busy highway. Later in his argument, Slusser said engineers have estimated the lanes could reduce traffic by roughly ten percent.

The line of questioning came during an hour-long argument at the Court of Appeals on Wednesday in a case challenging the I-77 toll lanes filed by the anti-tolls group Widen I-77.

The group originally filed its challenge to the toll lanes in January 2015. The case was dismissed by Mecklenburg County Superior Court Judge Osmand Smith in February 2016. That decision was appealed, which is what led to Wednesday’s arguments.

Attorney Matt Arnold represented Widen I-77 at the hearing. Arnold boiled his argument down to two points: that the North Carolina General Assembly’s decision to contract with a private company to build toll lanes does not serve a public purpose and that the private company building the lanes should not be able to set toll rates at its sole discretion.

Arnold argued that by failing to set a cap on toll rates, the state has delegated its ability to toll drivers, something, he argued, should not be allowed.

But Mitch Karlan, the attorney representing the company building the toll lanes, I-77 Mobility Partners, said there cannot be a cap on toll rates in order for the lanes to keep traffic moving at a guaranteed speed as required by its contract.

Karlan said that the company needs to be able to adjust its price in five-minute intervals–higher if a large number of cars are using the lanes and lower if traffic is lighter. He argued that a high-occupancy lane like the ones being built along I-77 cannot work if the maximum rate that can be charged is capped.

Last fall, WBTV visited Atlanta, Georgia, where lawmakers have capped the amount that drivers can be charged to use toll lanes there. That cap was recently increased to reflect the recent demand–and, therefore, the amount of traffic–in the toll lanes.

Karlan also told the three-judge panel that the company would be incentivized to keep rates as low as possible to encourage enough drivers to use the lanes in order to generate enough revenue to pay back its debt.

“We have to generate enough revenue to repay bonds,”  Karlan said, referring to the money I-77 Mobility Partners–and Cintra, its Spanish parent company–borrowed to build the toll lanes.

But a previous WBTV investigation found Cintra has a history of borrowing billions of dollars to build or toll roads, driving up the cost of tolls and then declaring bankruptcy when usage of its roads drop and the company can no longer pay its bills.

The company’s toll roads in Chicago, Indiana and Texas have each gone bankrupt. In Chicago and Indiana, the company still made a profit on the roads even after declaring bankruptcy by selling the toll rights.

Under its deal with North Carolina, if Cintra were to default on the I-77 toll lanes, North Carolina would have to cover its losses up to $175 million, NCDOT says on the project’s website.

Attorneys for both NCDOT and I-77 Mobility Partners pointed out that the public can use the toll lanes for free in some cases: those carpooling with three or more passengers, public transit vehicles, and emergency vehicles.

But, ultimately, attorney Matt Arnold and those behind the Widen I-77 group say that’s not enough to justify the project moving forward.

“That still doesn’t help the (Honda) Accord,”  Arnold told the judges in response to the assertion that the public is served by limited free use of the lanes. “It helps the guy in the Lexus but not the guy in the Accord. Or the guy in the work truck. Or the tractor-trailer.”

After the arguments, Huntersville Commissioner Mark Gibbons said he hoped the judges were persuaded enough to stop the project.

“It just does not serve the whole public and that’s wrong for something that will hold us hostage for the next 50 years,”  Gibbons said.

Representatives of NCDOT declined to comment following the court hearing Wednesday morning.

A spokesman for I-77 Mobility Partners declined to answer questions on camera but provided the following statement:

“We are very proud to be constructing an innovative transportation project that will help deliver traffic mobility options to motorists in the Charlotte and Lake Norman region. Progress on the construction of the I-77 Express Lanes is well under way and we are continuing to make significant progress towards project completion. We fully respect the judicial process and cannot comment further on pending litigation.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on February 09, 2017, 10:22:11 AM
"Providing reliable travel time" and "reducing congestion" seem to me to be the same concept, just expressed in different words.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on February 09, 2017, 02:15:54 PM
"Providing reliable travel time" and "reducing congestion" seem to me to be the same concept, just expressed in different words.

I agree. Although I wish the state would run these toll lanes instead of some foreign company whose primary goal is profit margin. If NCDOT needs to know how to run these things, they can go talk to people in Georgia like that news station did.

Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what the court decides. I hope they will cancel the contract or, at a minimum, put price caps on the tolls. Cintra (f those guys, btw) probably won't like that, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2017, 02:23:17 PM
Quote from: Widen I-77
"[the toll lanes do not] serve the whole public and that’s wrong for something that will hold us hostage for the next 50 years,”  Gibbons said.

If Charlotte's growth plan is to never serve anything more than drivers, than yes, they may not serve the "whole" public (which is BS anyway because not everyone has a drivers licence and a car which they may or may not be allowed to drive (i.e. those with a suspended licence)). But if they plan to incorporate, I don't know, a bus, into their growth plan, the toll lanes will serve a purpose (provide reliable, on-time service for bus riders).

I'm not sure how the HOV lanes are currently performing along the I-77, but if they're not doing well, NCDOT has no choice but to install toll lanes, because federal funding comes into question when HOV lanes average lower than 45 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2017, 02:56:13 PM
If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 09, 2017, 07:25:33 PM
If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.

It's not just the officials. Lake Norman area residents are furious about the deal as well. It's one of the reasons NC has a new governor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jakeroot on February 09, 2017, 08:09:47 PM
If those public officials don't like the new toll lanes, they're more than welcome to remain in the general-purpose lanes.

It's not just the officials. Lake Norman area residents are furious about the deal as well. It's one of the reasons NC has a new governor.

Who wants to pay a toll? Of course they aren't happy about the lanes.

What the DOT should do is upgrade interchanges and add auxiliary lanes (in places) to please the locals. That's what WSDOT did with the 405 toll lanes. Since the 405 toll lanes opened, congestion has increased where a bottleneck was built (which will be rectified at least slightly in the coming year), but decreased in other areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 15, 2017, 01:12:55 PM
The latest on NC-540's construction timetable.

http://www.wral.com/dot-looks-to-hit-accelerator-on-nc-540-construction/16528818/ (http://www.wral.com/dot-looks-to-hit-accelerator-on-nc-540-construction/16528818/)

Quote
When will N.C. Highway 540 be finished?

It's a million-dollar question for many commuters in the Triangle, especially those who live south of Raleigh.

North Carolina Department of Transportation officials say they have a plan to complete the loop around Raleigh faster.

Many business owners and residents say it can't happen soon enough.

DOT communications officer Carly Olexik says the highway was designed to be completed in three segments, but there's now a way to "accelerate" all of that.

"Instead of having three separate segments, we are combining two big legs of the project. By completing those earlier, the entire project could be completed four years earlier," Olexik said.

The new plan combines the segment between the N.C. Highway 55 Bypass and U.S. Highway 401 with the section between U.S. 401 and I-40.

Construction could begin in 2020 or 2021, four years earlier than the original plan.

Joe Milazzo, the executive director of the Regional Transportation Alliance, which advocates for major transportation projects in the area, says completing N.C. 540 is the group's biggest priority. He says he likes the new timeline.

"Yesterday would be great, but as soon as they can get the project moving would be wonderful," he said.

Milazzo says a finished N.C. 540 will provide an important connection to I-40 and the future Interstate 42, which will generally follow the U.S. Highway 70 corridor and connect Garner, Clayton, Smithfield, Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern and Havelock with the Port of Morehead City.

"It's important for commerce, for travel alternatives. It's important for transit and also to relieve the local streets," he said.

DOT says it's going to look for ways to speed up the project even more.

The DOT's new plan also means a big change for the last segment of N.C. 540, which would connect the loop from I-40 to U.S. Highway 64/264 (Interstate 495) in Knightdale.

That segment originally was not on a schedule for completion, but the new plan now has construction beginning in 2027.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 15, 2017, 05:21:30 PM
I once heard they made NC 540 a toll road so it would be constructed sooner than if it was a free road. Was this interpretation accurate?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 15, 2017, 05:45:58 PM
I once heard they made NC 540 a toll road so it would be constructed sooner than if it was a free road. Was this interpretation accurate?

Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 15, 2017, 08:17:36 PM
You replied to a bot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on February 24, 2017, 07:13:55 PM
Looks like they've removed a lot of the clutter from the 540 signage, at least in Apex.

Before: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7474444,-78.8877692,3a,75y,287.73h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1MppsNwGu_DT74pCdogXkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7474444,-78.8877692,3a,75y,287.73h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1MppsNwGu_DT74pCdogXkA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)

After http://i.imgur.com/7idd4x3.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/7idd4x3.jpg) - Terrible quality (sorry).  Only shows Toll 540 North/South without any 'TO' signage or control cities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 07, 2017, 09:31:54 AM
The completion date for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (NC-11) has been pushed back to June 2020. The bypass is being built to interstate standards and would become part of a future interstate running from US-70/Future I-42 in Kinston to US-64/Future I-87 in Bethel, should the Eastern NC Gateway Act be re-introduced in Congress and passes in some shape, form, or fashion.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/DOT-Greenville-Southwest-Bypass-is-on-track-414430673.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/DOT-Greenville-Southwest-Bypass-is-on-track-414430673.html)

Quote
You might want to plan some extra time for your commute if you're driving near Ayden.

The NC DOT closed two of the four lanes of NC-11, south of Ayden, Monday morning, for the installation of new sewer lines.

The work is expected to take a couple of weeks and should be completed by 5 p.m. March 17th.

Previous Story

Department of Transportation officials say the warm weather has allowed crews to put in a few more days of work on the Greenville Southwest Bypass this winter season.

However, officials say more work has been added to the project, pushing the expected completion date back to June 2020.

Drivers may have noticed the work being done on NC 11, just south of Ayden, where traffic is down to one lane in each direction.

Tuesday, crews were building crossovers, which they expect to finish by Thursday night, for an upcoming traffic shift that will allow workers to install a sewer line across NC 11.

"We've definitely been able to work a little more throughout the winter and been more productive," says Sarah Lentine, a DOT Greenville senior assistant engineer. "We're definitely satisfied with the work that's been done so far, we definitely feel like we're on track to complete."

Starting the second week of March, Sarah Lentine says traffic will shift to a two lane, two way pattern in the northbound lanes, so they can start building the sewer line across the south bound lanes.

She says traffic could stay in that pattern for 2-3 weeks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on March 18, 2017, 12:21:00 AM
I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 18, 2017, 12:51:25 AM
I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on March 18, 2017, 04:34:03 AM
I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.
Probably the end of i74 when sign placed. Like Benson on i40 because i40 ended there at i95 for a while

LGMS428

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on March 18, 2017, 04:52:49 AM
I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.

Usually I roll my eyes when I see "Why didn't they...." questions about control cities (the cities and towns thought to be better suited for placement are always subjective and not everyone would be happy no matter what they did).

But in this instance I actually agree. Since they decided to use Laurinburg as the closer primary control city, and Rockingham is not that far from there then Charlotte would have been the logical distant secondary control city, it's size not withstanding. Adding Charlotte's size into the equation it truly becomes a no brainer that Charlotte be listed.
Probably the end of i74 when sign placed. Like Benson on i40 because i40 ended there at i95 for a while

LGMS428



There may be something to that, JW...

When the US-74 exit was still Exit 14 the controls were: Maxton and Laurinburg

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5962562,-79.1079599,3a,75y,59.59h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCWjyxszfj8LRWQHZ4YodOg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.5962562,-79.1079599,3a,75y,59.59h,84.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCWjyxszfj8LRWQHZ4YodOg!2e0!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en)
                                                                                   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 18, 2017, 09:58:37 AM
Possibly related to potential confusion from having two route types with the same number at the same interchange, and the higher class of route does not go to Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on March 18, 2017, 03:35:57 PM
I have a question, why does Charlotte get the snub at the I-74/I-95 interchange? Considering US 74 continues to Charlotte after I-74 peels off, it would make sense to me that it would be mentioned at this interchange, especially since Charlotte is the largest city in both Carolinas.
Possibly related to potential confusion from having two route types with the same number at the same interchange, and the higher class of route does not go to Charlotte.


Question:  Is the lack of mention for Charlotte only on the direct interchange BGS's; are there no additional signs mentioning Charlotte as a secondary destination -- e.g. "Charlotte/Wilmington use I-74" or similar?  Perhaps I'm just accustomed to CA-style signage that follows this practice; but it certainly would seem applicable here, as the I-74/US 74 corridor is the most direct route from I-95 to Charlotte.  Now if I-77 actually extended to I-95 somewhere in SC, NB Charlotte mention might not be so important, but SB is quite the opposite -- at least south of the I-85 split in VA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on March 18, 2017, 05:02:04 PM
Question:  Is the lack of mention for Charlotte only on the direct interchange BGS's; are there no additional signs mentioning Charlotte as a secondary destination -- e.g. "Charlotte/Wilmington use I-74" or similar?  Perhaps I'm just accustomed to CA-style signage that follows this practice; but it certainly would seem applicable here, as the I-74/US 74 corridor is the most direct route from I-95 to Charlotte.  Now if I-77 actually extended to I-95 somewhere in SC, NB Charlotte mention might not be so important, but SB is quite the opposite -- at least south of the I-85 split in VA.

Taking US 74 would be well out of the way for southbound I-95 traffic coming from anywhere south of Fayetteville, though. Taking US 64, US 264, US 70, or US 401 would all be shorter, quicker options. There's really nowhere of significance on I-95 except Lumberton where taking I-95 directly to US 74 on a trip to Charlotte would make sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 18, 2017, 06:04:39 PM
Speaking of US-64 and control cities, NC seemed to view Raleigh as a destination as an afterthought. Completely inexcusable given that US-64 directly serves it and its the state capital.

https://goo.gl/maps/5wQJWQwxsRU2
https://goo.gl/maps/93GpW7G2ki42
https://goo.gl/maps/SV2XvWX8AwN2

Once you get off the exit, its finally signed as it should be:
https://goo.gl/maps/SDWy6GrAMdQ2

Northbound signing is worse, but irreverent given that traffic should have taken I-40 or US-264 already.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on March 18, 2017, 06:16:29 PM
AFAIK, Charlotte is not mentioned at ALL on I-95 in Virginia and the Carolinas. Not even at the I-85 interchange in Petersburg, VA. Going northbound on I-95 through South Carolina it kind-of makes sense because at I-26, Columbia takes precedence, and no driver going north to Charlotte would take I-20.

I think Charlotte deserves at least a supplemental sign mention at I/US 74.

However, Charlotte is mentioned at far north at Beckley, WV on I-77.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on March 18, 2017, 07:32:20 PM
Taking US 74 would be well out of the way for southbound I-95 traffic coming from anywhere south of Fayetteville, though. Taking US 64, US 264, US 70, or US 401 would all be shorter, quicker options. There's really nowhere of significance on I-95 except Lumberton where taking I-95 directly to US 74 on a trip to Charlotte would make sense.

Yeah, US 74's approach to Charlotte from I-95 does involve a little bit of "backtracking" vis-à-vis a bit of WNW or NW trajectory.  However, all the other options, particularly US 64 and/or 264 involve traversing other urban areas (Raleigh and the rest of the "triangle"); I can't see NCDOT putting Charlotte on I-95 approach signage for either one of those intersecting routes.  Perhaps if US 64 was improved along its full length (not just the Asheboro bypass) supplemental/secondary signage could be placed at the US 64 interchange -- but sticking to limited-access or even divided highways puts one in the midst of several interim urban regions -- hardly direct access to Charlotte.  US 74 (I-74) is the shortest high-capacity route from the I-95 alignment to Charlotte -- and it doesn't pass through any interim major urban areas (and will be even more efficient when the Monroe toll bypass is opened); IMO, supplemental Charlotte reference at the 74/95 interchange is warranted. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2017, 02:48:59 AM
Speaking of US-64 and control cities, NC seemed to view Raleigh as a destination as an afterthought. Completely inexcusable given that US-64 directly serves it and its the state capital.

https://goo.gl/maps/5wQJWQwxsRU2
https://goo.gl/maps/93GpW7G2ki42
https://goo.gl/maps/SV2XvWX8AwN2

Once you get off the exit, its finally signed as it should be:
https://goo.gl/maps/SDWy6GrAMdQ2

Northbound signing is worse, but irreverent given that traffic should have taken I-40 or US-264 already.

I agree. Raleigh should be the only control city for US-64 West at that interchange.

Another thing I never understood is Kenly being used as a control city on the BGS for I-795 South where it splits from US-264 in Wilson. Sure, the US-301 exit is right around the corner from there, but anybody going to Kenly would've stayed on I-95 South. Wilmington should replace Kenly on the BGS, since I-795's purpose is to act as a shortcut to Wilmington (via US-117 & I-40) from Wilson & points north and vice-versa.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 19, 2017, 07:34:46 AM
Or at least use Goldsboro.  At least they have Seymour Johnson AFB.

As for the Exit 138, those BGS' are much older.  Yes, they still should have Raleigh on the sign as not so much an afterthought (and why Tarboro anyway????  Isn't Williamston or Manteo more a major point) but the signs showing Raleigh are far newer (the raised caps alone are evidence; NC didn't start using that until 2009)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2017, 10:19:37 AM
Or at least use Goldsboro.  At least they have Seymour Johnson AFB.

Goldsboro is already on the BGS. Kenly is just one of the two control cities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 19, 2017, 11:00:27 AM
Or at least use Goldsboro.  At least they have Seymour Johnson AFB.

As for the Exit 138, those BGS' are much older.  Yes, they still should have Raleigh on the sign as not so much an afterthought (and why Tarboro anyway????  Isn't Williamston or Manteo more a major point) but the signs showing Raleigh are far newer (the raised caps alone are evidence; NC didn't start using that until 2009)

Tarboro's population is twice Williamston's and Manteo is 150 miles away with a population of 1500.  There is supplemental signage for Cape Hatteras Seashore and IIRC the NC Aquarium in Manteo.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 24, 2017, 10:20:07 AM
Update on the future extension of NC-43 in New Bern.

http://wnct.com/2017/03/21/craven-co-road-project-about-to-head-in-the-right-direction/ (http://wnct.com/2017/03/21/craven-co-road-project-about-to-head-in-the-right-direction/)

Quote
A long-awaited road project in Craven County is closer to becoming a reality.

Where the current-day NC 43 connector ends at the intersection of US 70 and 17, it partially continues for about a mile south where it dead ends.

However, a project is in the works to extend the NC 43 connector another two and a half miles all the way to US 17 Business.

“It connects 70 into 17 Business,”  said Jeff Cabaniss, NCDOT engineer.  “We had built part of it from 70 over to 43 several years ago. This is the extension that would bring it all the way over to parallel Trent Creek Road.”

The last leg was originally scheduled for 2020, but Cabaniss said that could be moved up by two years.

“We’ve had the preliminary plans and the environmental documents since 2005, so it’s one that we can move up and get on very quickly,”  Cabaniss said. “It’s scheduled right now for right-of-way in 2018. So it’ll be one of the first projects that we start on.”

But much has changed since the plans were drawn up more than a decade ago, and it’s something the DOT may have to contend with as the project moves forward.

“That’s almost completely filled out now,”  said Cabaniss while pointing to an older map of the project. “And there’s another subdivision right here if you go on the aerial to see it.”

Once that’s worked out and construction gets underway, the completed project could provide a big boost to that part of Craven County. Besides cutting off time on commutes, it’s in an area ripe for industrial development.

“It’s supposed to help with access management and alleviate some traffic,”  said Cabaniss. “And also open up the area for some development in the future.”

Currently, these plans are preliminary. A final decision on whether the project will get underway next year will come from the state Board of Transportation. It’s expected to vote on the matter in June.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2017, 05:40:49 PM
^ Is this the road leading down from Exit 411?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 24, 2017, 07:01:18 PM
^ Is this the road leading down from Exit 411?

Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on March 27, 2017, 05:59:13 PM
NCDOT has posted some alternatives for the freeway conversion of US 70 near Brier Creek. There are two alternatives.

Both have a SPUI at Brier Creek Parkway, which I believe has always been the plan there since day one.

Alternative 2 is clearly what they intend to build. The existing TW Alexander gets just a grade separation at US 70, while the connection between US 70 and TW Alexander is achieved by building the segment of the Aviation Parkway Extension between US 70 and TW Alexander.

Alternative 1 must be some sort of strawman plan that they have no intention whatsoever of actually building. Flyovers and braided ramps abound, to demonstrate what must be done in order to maintain a direct interchange between US70 and TW Alexander.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US70BrierCreek/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
That's a REALLY TIGHT weave on eastbound 70 between Briar Creek and the exit ramp to 540.  Barely 1000ft.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
Google Maps now showing construction progress on I-140 and the Cape Fear River Bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/dNi7u5Tnx652
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on March 31, 2017, 08:00:24 PM
Google Maps now showing construction progress on I-140 and the Cape Fear River Bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/dNi7u5Tnx652

Will the new segment of NC/I 140 be opening soon?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 31, 2017, 09:05:40 PM
Google Maps now showing construction progress on I-140 and the Cape Fear River Bridge.

https://goo.gl/maps/dNi7u5Tnx652

Will the new segment of NC/I 140 be opening soon?

Per NCDOT website the completion date is summer 2018

Fixed quote. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 01, 2017, 04:32:48 PM
Will the remainder of the US-17 freeway east of I-40 become part of I-140 once the last section opens?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 01, 2017, 07:29:34 PM
Will the remainder of the US-17 freeway east of I-40 become part of I-140 once the last section opens?
Not sure. I think that is the intention, but I'm not sure the designation is approved east of I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 03, 2017, 12:39:02 AM
Will the remainder of the US-17 freeway east of I-40 become part of I-140 once the last section opens?
Not sure. I think that is the intention, but I'm not sure the designation is approved east of I-40.

As of right now, NC 140 is designated the entire route and I-140 is only between US 421 and I-40.  US 17 will be rerouted back through Wilmington on a modified routing, which has already been approved by AASHTO.  I am sure when they are close to opening the last section that they will make a request to AASHTO to extend I-140.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2017, 01:13:29 PM
A new interchange has opened on NC-540.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13674 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13674)

Quote
RALEIGH — Drivers on the Veridea Parkway in Holly Springs now have a direct link to the Triangle Expressway. The new Veridea Parkway interchange, located between U.S. 1 and N.C. 55 Bypass, opened to traffic this morning at 11. It is the first new interchange for the expressway since its final phase opened in 2013.

“The N.C. Turnpike Authority sees the new interchange as an advantage for residents in the area,”  said Executive Director Beau Memory.  “This addition will improve mobility for current traffic and larger volumes of traffic anticipated in the future, as a result of substantial growth and development in the area.”

Previously, drivers wanting to get on the Triangle Expressway from Veridea Parkway, formerly Old Holly Springs-Apex Road, had to drive about five miles out of their way to get onto the expressway. The new interchange provides a direct north-south connection.

“We are very excited that the new Holly Springs/Apex I-540 Interchange will offer our citizens and commuters a safer and faster option for their travels,”  said Holly Springs Mayor Dick Sears.

A new interchange at Morrisville Parkway in western Cary is also being designed, with construction scheduled to begin in 2018.

Drivers who use a Quick Pass transponder on the Triangle Expressway have the largest coverage area of toll program interoperability in the nation. The NC Quick Pass is interoperable with toll roads and bridges that accept Florida’s Sun Pass and Georgia’s Peach Pass. The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass transponder provides further interoperability with E-ZPass facilities in 15 states throughout the east, northeast and midwest sections of the country.

For NC Quick Pass information, including payment and purchase options, call 1-877-7MY-PASS (1-877-769-7277) or visit the NC Quick Pass website.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 14, 2017, 06:53:38 PM
Headed down the Eastern Urban Loop (I-785/Future I-840) in Greensboro, I noticed that there are some signage changes along the route. The sign that used to say "I-40/I-85/Business 85" is now replaced with a signage that says "I-40/I-85 NORTH, GREENSBORO, DURHAM, RALEIGH.". The signs omitted I-85 BUSINESS. Also, there is also an "END I-785" shield posted along the road. I hope I will take some pictures tomorrow and figure how to post them here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 14, 2017, 11:46:04 PM
Headed down the Eastern Urban Loop (I-785/Future I-840) in Greensboro, I noticed that there are some signage changes along the route. The sign that used to say "I-40/I-85/Business 85" is now replaced with a signage that says "I-40/I-85 NORTH, GREENSBORO, DURHAM, RALEIGH.". The signs omitted I-85 BUSINESS. Also, there is also an "END I-785" shield posted along the road. I hope I will take some pictures tomorrow and figure how to post them here.
Those are new, within the last 2 weeks, the old signs were still up (and no I-785 signs) when I traveled through there on March 30. It appears NCDOT and I have a coordination problem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on April 30, 2017, 01:45:49 PM
With all of our focus on our new Future Interstates I have dropped the ball and lost track of the progress of the US-17 Jones County Bypass.

Construction has begun on the interchange between US-17 Business and US-17 at the Jones/Craven County line. It appears that the interchange will be centered on the SW to S curve of the New Bern Bypass judging by the grading work being done in the area.

The highway has been reduced to one lane in both directions from just North of the existing stoplight to about 0.5 miles east of the curve, and the guardrails have been removed  inside the curve itself. The 50 mph speed limit has been extended to about a mile Northeast of the bridge over Tuscarora-Rhems Rd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2017, 04:27:59 PM
Where and how many interchanges will this project have? What will be the bypass's northern terminus?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 01, 2017, 06:51:23 PM
Where and how many interchanges will this project have? What will be the bypass's northern terminus?
This article has some information about the project:
http://www.newbernsj.com/article/20150627/news/150629072
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on May 03, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
Where and how many interchanges will this project have? What will be the bypass's northern terminus?

Here is the project overview map from NCDOT:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Project%20Breakdown%20Maps/R2514.pdf

Only NCDOT could completely flip a map the wrong way, but at least you can get the gist of what the route will look like.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on May 03, 2017, 09:56:52 AM
Wall Street Journal: As complaints pile up–even from Nascar stars–N.C. rethinks a public-private road project - Accidents are up, traffic worse as commuters endure a 26-mile work zone; a tweet blast from Danica Patrick (https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-complaints-pile-up-north-carolina-rethinks-public-private-road-project-1493733600)

Quote
When North Carolina brought in a private operator to add toll lanes to a 26-mile stretch of highway north of Charlotte, its goal was to reduce congestion and build a road the state couldn’t otherwise afford.

Quote
The hope was that the state’s first public-private partnership for roads would be a model of efficiency and the first of many such projects. But the expansion of Interstate 77 has hit speed bumps, with travel times lengthening and accidents increasing. Now the state is considering paying up to $300 million to get out of the deal and retake control of the roadway.

Quote
Commuters and political observers are saying the state ceded too much control to Cintra, the unit of Spanish infrastructure firm Ferrovial SA that signed the $650 million contract in 2014. They would have liked work to be done a mile or two at a time rather than nearly all at once, creating a 26-mile work zone. They also say the state highway department would have responded better to complaints, like those on Easter weekend, when drivers said they were dodging roadway debris.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on May 03, 2017, 09:58:46 AM
Why aren't I surprised about this? I-77 should've been widened years ago!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2017, 06:43:19 AM
Google Maps has updated their satellite images. It's now showing construction of the Greenville Southwest Bypass between the US-264/Stantonsburg Road interchange (Exit 73) and NC-11 just south of Ayden.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on May 16, 2017, 08:31:50 AM
I also see that Google Maps is showing US 264 as I-587
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
I also see that Google Maps is showing US 264 as I-587

Yeah, Google Maps has been showing that for about a month now, despite the fact that it hasn't been added to the Interstate system yet and only has "Future I-587" signs posted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ixnay on May 18, 2017, 07:56:39 AM
Google maps is showing wb Bryan Blvd. (by the Triad Airport in Greensboro) as being closed for construction (eb is open).  What's the project?

ixnay
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on May 18, 2017, 10:01:35 AM
Google maps is showing wb Bryan Blvd. (by the Triad Airport in Greensboro) as being closed for construction (eb is open).  What's the project?

ixnay
Bryan Boulevard is being converted to I-73. The interchange with Airport Parkway is being rebuilt to connect with the new segment of I-73 that heads west to NC 68 to connect with the new section of I-73 (NC 68/US 220 Connector) that opens tomorrow (5/18/2017).

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/futureI73/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on May 21, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
Drove through Fayetteville today on 95.... The interchange with NC 24 seems quite elaborate. I rarely see cars exiting or entering.  Was it designed with something else in mind!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 21, 2017, 10:51:19 PM
Google maps is showing wb Bryan Blvd. (by the Triad Airport in Greensboro) as being closed for construction (eb is open).  What's the project?

ixnay
Bryan Boulevard is being converted to I-73. The interchange with Airport Parkway is being rebuilt to connect with the new segment of I-73 that heads west to NC 68 to connect with the new section of I-73 (NC 68/US 220 Connector) that opens tomorrow (5/18/2017).

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/futureI73/

Photo of construction on closed section of Bryan Blvd. taken on Saturday (5/20) courtesy of Strider:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg4str517c.JPG)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on May 21, 2017, 11:35:03 PM
I decided to go to Greensboro Saturday night to see the new I-73 section.  Really cool little stub route I must say.

I then ventured eastward to the I-785/840 conglomeration and started noticing a lot of new signs on I-85/40, especially eastbound.  Does anyone know if it's mere coincidence that the new signage seems to stop at the Guilford/Alamance county line between Whitsett and Elon?  I ask because it looks like Exit 138 (NC 61/Gibsonville) was the last exit with the 2012 MUTCD style signage and then it goes back to 90's style signage for Exit 140 (University Drive/Elon).

That goofy style they had between Mount Hope Church Road and the first guide sign for NC 61 (basically what looks like Helvetica with some odd spacing) is almost history now.  Not sure how I feel about that, because seeing those old signs reminds me of the daily commute between Greensboro and RTP while waiting for housing to open up.  Then again, I like the more modern style signs.

I'll save my tirade about the gratuitous upgrade of Exit 220 eastbound I-40 (Randleman Road/Old US 220) for later.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on May 22, 2017, 05:39:03 PM
Drove through Fayetteville today on 95.... The interchange with NC 24 seems quite elaborate. I rarely see cars exiting or entering.  Was it designed with something else in mind!
I think it's mostly to serve NC 24 east of there since they are upgrading NC 24 between I-95 and Clinton.  Fayetteville seems to be better served from I-95 via Business I-95 or NC 87 than NC 24. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 22, 2017, 06:51:10 PM
Drove through Fayetteville today on 95.... The interchange with NC 24 seems quite elaborate. I rarely see cars exiting or entering.  Was it designed with something else in mind!
I think it's mostly to serve NC 24 east of there since they are upgrading NC 24 between I-95 and Clinton.  Fayetteville seems to be better served from I-95 via Business I-95 or NC 87 than NC 24.
Both NC 24 (Fayetteville to Jacksonville and Morehead City) and NC 87 (Fayetteville to Wilmington) are on the NCDOT list as Strategic Transportation Corridors. NC 24 carries a fair amount of truck traffic between Fayetteville and the coast, I believe.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 28, 2017, 10:52:25 PM
NCDOT has (finally) released their 2017-2018 State Transportation Map:
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/)

From my first look at it, it appears to be a map that not very successfully tries to depict NC roadways as of Jan.1 2017. Unfortunately, they released it almost 5 months later, meaning for many routes, it's already out of date. For example, on the state map, I-73 north of Greensboro still shown as under construction and I-73/I-74 is shown neither under construction nor extended further south in Ellerbe. Meanwhile it still has I-74 signed on the Rockingham Bypass and it also shows US 74 between the Rockingham and Lauringburg as a freeway. As for other errors spotted, an erroneous I-495 shield is shown on US 64 east on the Franklin/Nash county line, not correct, even if the route still officially exists. US 17 appears on the Wilmington Bypass, though it has been offficially moved back through Wilmington, plus the NC 140 part isn't even shown and the rest of the route is not shown as under construction. For the insets, the Triad map has I-73 north of I-40, but no I-840, an I-840 shield appears on the eastern Loop, but no I-785 (the I-73 Bryan Blvd exit is listed as 108, not 107). I-495 also appears on the Triangle inset. Elsewhere, the new exit in Holly Springs on NC 540 is not shown and there's a Toll NC 147 shield on the Durham Freeway. No exit numbers are listed for NC 295 on the Fayetteville inset. US 74 Monroe Bypass not shown as under construction on the Charlotte inset.

Given all this, IMO the map is the "worst of both worlds", one that is a late, thus out of date, but that appears to have been rushed to publication without enough time for an adequate proofreading check. Unfortunately, drivers will be stuck with it for 2 more years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 29, 2017, 10:34:22 AM
Also missing is NC 906 and the NC 37 extension south to US 64.

They also continue to show NC 281 with unpaved sections which is no longer true - fully paved throughout...

US 17 is shown correctly in Wilmington (using US 421 north to I-140) assuming they haven't signed their approved request to send US 17 back through Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2017, 03:46:36 PM
NCDOT has (finally) released their 2017-2018 State Transportation Map:
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel/mappubs/statetransportationmap/)

(http://m.quickmeme.com/img/fb/fba0c4627b4633855f402108cab53c3198510c3d2c25c3e96a25269e25cc0de9.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 29, 2017, 06:26:17 PM
Also missing is NC 906 and the NC 37 extension south to US 64.

They also continue to show NC 281 with unpaved sections which is no longer true - fully paved throughout...

US 17 is shown correctly in Wilmington (using US 421 north to I-140) assuming they haven't signed their approved request to send US 17 back through Wilmington.
There have always been some problems with these maps, but this is way too many errors.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on May 30, 2017, 08:51:53 PM
Why the need to label 'end of 78' on the Sanford inset?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on May 31, 2017, 09:28:40 AM
The Wilson inset has US 117 overlapping I-795/US 264 to I-95, which is not true. US 117 ends at US 301.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2017, 12:03:38 PM
NCDOT really needs to start paying attention to the maps they put out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 31, 2017, 12:06:09 PM
NCDOT really needs to start paying attention to the maps they put out.



I think whoever designed this map is way behind... or did the work without contacting NCDOT to double-check... but that is the worst map I ever seen. too many route mistakes....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 01, 2017, 02:27:57 PM
A transportation bill that would create a fund for large-scale projects is moving through the Senate.

http://www.wral.com/megaproject-bill-moves-on-despite-opposition/16734499/ (http://www.wral.com/megaproject-bill-moves-on-despite-opposition/16734499/)

Quote
A bill that would create a new fund for large transportation projects is moving through the Senate despite what appeared to be a vote against it in the Senate Transportation committee Wednesday.

Backed by House Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. John Torbett, the megaproject recommendation came from an interim House committee tasked with finding solutions for long-term transportation needs. The provision was tacked onto an agency bill, House Bill 110.

Torbett, R-Gaston, explained that the fund would be used for projects that are large in scale with a price tag too high to work under the Strategic Transportation Investment plan, or STI, structure that state lawmakers approved several years ago. STI has a $200 million cap on projects. Using the repaving of Interstate 95 as an example, Torbett said, "You would have to carve up a $4 billion project into $200 million dollar projects to get it fixed."

House Bill 110 would create the fund but doesn't put any money into it. Torbett suggested that the General Assembly in the future might consider raising a tax to fund such megaprojects outside the regular transportation budget. "We did not choose to go the revenue route in this session," Torbett noted.

"This is simply a tool in a tool box," he added. "It does nothing to upset the STI."

Sen. Kathy Harrington, R-Gaston, was uncharacteristically blunt in her opposition to it.

"This is the single worst piece of legislation I've seen in the years I've been here," Harrington told Torbett, saying the STI had been enacted to take transportation funding decisions out of the hands of politicians. "This puts it right back in ... this goes right behind the back of the STI."

Sens. Wesley Meredith, R-Cumberland, and Joyce Krawiec, R-Forsyth, seconded Harrington's opposition to the provision.

"I think this goes outside the STI and allows a group of people to decide where the dollars go," Meredith said. "I'm not supportive."

But Sen. Bill Rabon, one of the STI's chief architects, nonetheless said he would vote for it "with trepidation."

"This does fly into STI, and of all the legislation I've worked on the last six years, I'm most proud of that," said Rabon, R-Brunswick.

But citing the work of the interim committee, he warned that, without some mechanism for large statewide projects, the current transportation budget would be hard-pressed to cover them.

Committee Chairman Sen. Jim Davis, R-Macon, called for a voice vote. Several more noes than ayes were audible, but Davis announced the bill would move on to the Senate Rules Committee.

"Are you saying it passed?" asked Sen. Mike Woodard, D-Durham, quizzically.

"It passed," Davis replied.

EDIT: The Senate killed the bill.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170601/megaproject-bill-killed-by-nc-senate (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170601/megaproject-bill-killed-by-nc-senate)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on June 02, 2017, 09:27:39 AM
I would rather they just add more money to the STI  program. This is the first time ever that I really have the feeling that NC is making the right transportation investments. Would be a shame to take billions of dollars and put it back in the hands of politicians.

Some revisions to the program may make sense, the corridor cap is indeed too low to cover the needed upgrades to I-95. But don't make a separate pork barrel slush fund.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 02, 2017, 11:34:56 AM
NCDOT has awarded the contract to build the next section of the US 74 Shelby Bypass (Future I-x26?), a segment from NC 226 to NC 150:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13903 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13903)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 02, 2017, 11:56:36 AM
NCDOT has awarded the contract to build the next section of the US 74 Shelby Bypass (Future I-x26?), a segment from NC 226 to NC 150:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13903 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=13903)

Wish this would not take so long, 5 years!!  I will actually get alot of benefit from this.  They have yet to pave the section West of 226, I figure that they will do all the grading/structures out east to 150, then pave.  I also hope that the next sections will soon follow because with this done and open, both 150 and 180 easteast bound will get swamped as a Shelby bypass.  US 74 through Shelby is such an unmitigated mess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 02, 2017, 03:00:01 PM
I'm 99.99% sure US-74 will eventually become an I-x26. NCDOT usually doesn't build roads to interstate standards unless they intend on requesting an interstate designation. The older existing US-74 freeway will still need shoulder widening, though.

I would definitely support an I-x26 here since it would give an interstate connection between Charlotte and Asheville (via connections to I-85 & I-26).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 02, 2017, 03:56:28 PM
I'm 99.99% sure US-74 will eventually become an I-x26. NCDOT usually doesn't build roads to interstate standards unless they intend on requesting an interstate designation. The older existing US-74 freeway will still need shoulder widening, though.

I would definitely support an I-x26 here since it would give an interstate connection between Charlotte and Asheville (via connections to I-85 & I-26).

Rather than consign the western (I-26>I-85) to a 3di -- and given the recent history of new NC Interstate designations -- I think that NCDOT will seek an even 2di for this section as well as the toll facility paralleling US 74 east of Charlotte (possibly a relocation of their previous US 70 selection, I-36, since it's an unused number in the state -- and this time it's grid-appropriate so it may pass muster).  This would provide Charlotte with an E-W Interstate route for the first time -- even if it has to sit on top of part of I-485 to circumvent the central city.  They'll include Monroe-Rockingham in their application, but without a set developmental timetable. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 02, 2017, 10:44:20 PM
I agree with the I-38 concept, especially if the Kings Mountain to Charlotte Airport tollway gets restarted.  But, locally, I hear I-426 floated frequently.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 03, 2017, 02:13:46 AM
I agree with the I-38 concept, especially if the Kings Mountain to Charlotte Airport tollway gets restarted.  But, locally, I hear I-426 floated frequently.

NC local officials and boosters tend to initially conceive of their city as the destination of any new Interstate corridor; this train of thought was the impetus behind the original I-495 designation of US 64 between I-95 and Raleigh; the notion was to simply give I-95 traffic a direct Interstate route into town.  It's probable that the same sentiment lies with those mentioning a "I-426"; the immediate goal is to convey I-26 travelers into the western reaches of greater Charlotte.   Nevertheless, it's likely that NCDOT will take a more interregional view and see the US 74 corridor west of Rockingham as one of the "missing links" in the state's ever-expanding Interstate network, egged on by the usual coterie of in-state advocates.  Now that NCDOT and their cohorts know how to take advantage of the process of conflating new federal high-priority corridors with trunk Interstate designations (as with I-42), it's probable that they'll continue to do so whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2017, 09:17:17 AM
NC local officials and boosters tend to initially conceive of their city as the destination of any new Interstate corridor; this train of thought was the impetus behind the original I-495 designation of US 64 between I-95 and Raleigh; the notion was to simply give I-95 traffic a direct Interstate route into town.

I-495 was "Plan B" after NCDOT's attempt at securing an I-44 designation between Raleigh and Norfolk from FHWA failed, likely due in no small part that there was no way that NCDOT could upgrade the entire corridor within FHWA's required 25-year deadline, especially where US-17 is concerned. So, NCDOT settled for I-495 and FHWA agreed to it. I-44 applications were never sent to AASHTO, however. You are right though, that local officials pushed for the connection to I-95, while also never giving up on the idea of linking Raleigh to Norfolk.

I initially thought NCDOT jumped the gun with I-495, since I-87's routing became law not long after I-495 was born, but looking back, I don't think NCDOT anticipated a Raleigh-Norfolk corridor moving through Congress as quick as it did.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on June 03, 2017, 10:06:14 AM
Is it possible for the NCDOT to sign the Monroe Bypass/Expressway as an Interstate? Do we know if the road is being funded by federal dollars? Because if it is, doesn't this mean the bypass can't become an Interstate or even a spur, in the same fashion as how NC 540 couldn't become part of I-540? If that's the case, then the Shelby bypass will likely become a spur of I-26, and US 74 between Rockingham and Wingate would become a spur of I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2017, 01:25:47 PM
Update on the Fortify project in Raleigh.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13912 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13912)

Quote
RALEIGH — Drivers going through the Interstate 40 Fortify project work zone next week will notice some major changes taking place. Beginning Monday night, June 5, contractor crews will begin taking away median barrier walls and re-opening newly-built outside lanes on the westbound side of the highway that have been closed during construction. That will shift traffic into its final pattern, and provide more space for drivers.

The shifts will be done over several nights, with work starting from the Gorman Street exit and going back to the I-40/440 split in southeast Raleigh in stages. The work is weather dependent, as new traffic lines have to be put in place, and that can’t be done in rainy or high humidity conditions.

As the westbound traffic lanes are opening, crews will continue to work on the eastbound side of the project, rebuilding those outside lanes. Once the westbound side of the project has been shifted into its final configuration, and as the schedule allows, crews will begin shifting portions of the eastbound lanes into their final pattern as well. This is expected to begin in early July.

With the exception of between Gorman Street and the U.S. 1 interchange in Cary, where there are three lanes open in each direction, the same number as before the project started, all traffic is expected to be in its final pattern by early to mid-August.

Once traffic is in that final pattern, the next major step will begin. This involves a resurfacing of the entire 8.5 miles of the project along I-40 in both directions, with permanent lane stripes and lane reflective markers as well. This will provide a smooth riding surface as well as on the transitions on and off of bridges in the work zone. That work will last into the late fall, and is also weather conditional.

As with the lane re-openings, the resurfacing will take place overnight to lower the impact to travelers. Lane closures will be in place to provide safer working conditions for the construction crews.

The opening of lanes in the final traffic pattern doesn’t mean there will be a change in the project speed limit of 60 miles per hour. Drivers are urged to continue to slow down and use extra caution while traveling through the work zone for their own safety as well as other drivers and passengers, and the construction crews.That is especially the case over the next few weeks as the western lanes go through their shifts.

Fortify project details, as well as traffic updates and live traffic cameras can be found on FortifyNC.com.

Real-time travel information for Fortify and other highways across the state is available at any time at DriveNC.gov and by following NCDOT on Twitter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on June 14, 2017, 01:11:23 PM
Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on June 14, 2017, 01:21:32 PM
Is it possible for the NCDOT to sign the Monroe Bypass/Expressway as an Interstate? Do we know if the road is being funded by federal dollars? Because if it is, doesn't this mean the bypass can't become an Interstate or even a spur, in the same fashion as how NC 540 couldn't become part of I-540? If that's the case, then the Shelby bypass will likely become a spur of I-26, and US 74 between Rockingham and Wingate would become a spur of I-74.

To my knowledge, the Expressway is completely based on a state-level public-private partnership, no federal money is involved. I don't think the department will seek to designate it anything other than US 74 for the foreseeable future for two reasons: The first being the fact that the expressway is still scheduled to be extended to east of Wadesboro in a second phase, so I doubt they would try to designate it without the ultimate plans being complete. Second, even by extending the Expressway to east of Wadesboro, the road would need some freeway upgrades for the miles between Wadesboro and Rockingham, so there would be a gap to future I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2017, 01:31:07 PM
Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

Unless NCDOT has been in contact with FHWA, they will still have to send applications to AASHTO and FHWA before they can sign it as I-885. They have not yet done so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 14, 2017, 05:51:32 PM
Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

Unless NCDOT has been in contact with FHWA, they will still have to send applications to AASHTO and FHWA before they can sign it as I-885. They have not yet done so.
I don't think NCDOT has requested the I-885 designation yet. They're assuming it's a no-brainer, and it probably is. It's hard to see what objection there could be to the designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 14, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
Noticed something interesting in a recent news release regarding the East End Connector. https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13947

"The Connector will have a designation of Interstate 885."

I know the sign plans previously released had an 885 symbol on it, but this is the first time the department has spoken so definitively that they will ask to have it designated as such.

I looked for previous wording and the last I could find on the topic was from 2016 when "... NCDOT may ask the Federal Highway Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to designate the combination of the Connecter and the Durham Freeway as Interstate 885".

They have been assuming it since the start of the project in 2014.  Of course they still have to request it to AASHTO, but their is no reason to deny it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 14, 2017, 11:48:52 PM
We have seen signage plan sheets with the I-885 shield on them
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 16, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
We have seen signage plan sheets with the I-885 shield on them
Plan images are available (towards the bottom) on my Future I-885 in NC website:
http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html (http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut885.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on June 16, 2017, 09:46:26 PM
I am sure I said this before but, I think they should:
1. Drop the NC147 designation for the entire Durham Freeway and Triangle Parkway
2. Route US70 over the downtown segment of the Durham Freeway and the EEC, cutting the I-85/US70 multiplex down to just 2 miles from exit 170 to 172 (it could be eliminated entirely with ramps from Business US70 to the Durham Freeway near exit 172 but that's probably not worth it)
3. Route I-885 as planned except without the NC147 multiplex
4. Renumber the toll portionof NC147 to NC885 (or continue the I-885 designation if rules change to allow it.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 17, 2017, 03:23:52 PM
On the way home from Durham I took US 401 out of Raleigh to drive the Rolesville Bypass.

The bypass was built as a superstreet setup at most (all?) of the intersections where left turns were accomplished by using U-turns past the intersection.

Two things I'd never seen before with these:

1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

2.  At the north end of the Rolesville bypass, US 401 Business traffic NB comes to a stoplight with US 401 SB and you must turn right at the T-intersection.  Then if you want to go to US 401 NB you make a U-turn but this has a signal for 401 NB traffic.  It is also possible to turn left directly from 401 NB to US 401 Business SB (how many people need to do this?). I don't understand why this makes any sense at a T-intersection.  Why not have the NB traffic use the same stoplight as the one at the SB lanes and have a left merge with no stoplight on US 401 NB.  The divided highway goes on another 3/4 mile which is enough room to do this...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 17, 2017, 03:45:36 PM
Quote
1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

A number of reasons.  It still eliminates the left turn conflicts at the main intersection, with the resultant safety benefits.  The signal is also simpler in that it's effectively a two-phase...with a traditional intersection you'd need at least a four-phase signal if protected left phases were desired.  The signal allows for a higher throughput than if it was stop-controlled.

IIRC, there are similar intersections along 15/501 between Chapel Hill and Durham.


Do not have an answer or a theory for your #2.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 17, 2017, 07:37:41 PM
On the way home from Durham I took US 401 out of Raleigh to drive the Rolesville Bypass.

The bypass was built as a superstreet setup at most (all?) of the intersections where left turns were accomplished by using U-turns past the intersection.

Two things I'd never seen before with these:

1.  At the intersection with Young St, there was a stoplight at the intersection itself...left turns from either direction on US 401 were permitted, but all traffic from either direction on Young St had to turn right.  Then, to make the movement of either using Young through traffic or Young wanting to turn left on US 401, you make a U-turn a short distance after turning right on US 401.  These U-turns also had stoplights on them.  I'm a little fuzzy why this set-up makes sense versus a traditional stoplighted intersection.

2.  At the north end of the Rolesville bypass, US 401 Business traffic NB comes to a stoplight with US 401 SB and you must turn right at the T-intersection.  Then if you want to go to US 401 NB you make a U-turn but this has a signal for 401 NB traffic.  It is also possible to turn left directly from 401 NB to US 401 Business SB (how many people need to do this?). I don't understand why this makes any sense at a T-intersection.  Why not have the NB traffic use the same stoplight as the one at the SB lanes and have a left merge with no stoplight on US 401 NB.  The divided highway goes on another 3/4 mile which is enough room to do this...

This is an example of the Superstreet and they have grown throughout the state.  US 17 in Wilmington, NC 55 Bypass in holly Springs come to mind among others.  Some are signalized some aren't.  But they are now throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: golden eagle on June 18, 2017, 01:21:20 PM
Why the need to label 'end of 78' on the Sanford inset?

I have the 2017-18 map I picked up at the I-85 welcome center near the Virginia border. I guess I'll go ahead and request the 2018/19 version.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 18, 2017, 03:55:48 PM
The NC-55 Bypass in Holly Springs finally converted the last intersection (Avent Ferry Rd.) to a super street setup. Traffic was getting pretty backed up there during rush hour, especially during the school year with the high school being west of there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 19, 2017, 06:57:14 AM
Bidding will begin in September for the US-301 improvement project in Wilson, with construction starting in early 2018.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/bids-start-in-september-for-tiger-grant-projects,86880 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/bids-start-in-september-for-tiger-grant-projects,86880)

Quote
Wilsonians got an opportunity Wednesday to see the future of U.S. 301 from the ground up.

“So far everything we’ve heard (from residents) has been very positive,”  said Bill Bass, assistant public works director for Wilson. “People are excited to see some progress, the final plans and to get some information about when construction can begin.”

There have been several prior meetings to get feedback on the $18 million project to improve the thoroughfare from Black Creek Road to Lipscomb Road. Bass said bids will be accepted started in September, and in early 2018 construction should begin on the project that includes raised medians, sidewalks and crosswalks along with improved stormwater systems in the area.

“I’m excited because of what it will do for Wilson, especially east Wilson,”  Councilman A.P. Coleman said at the public meeting.

The national shift toward interstates led to the U.S. 301 corridor to be neglected, but in 2015, the city was awarded $10 million in a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant to reinvest in the historic highway. In November, officials announced a $6.5 million allocation from the state that would enable the project to address a larger section of the infrastructure.

Wilson Chief Planning and Development Officer Rodger Lentz said he’s had an uptick in inquiries – new construction and redevelopment – about development along U.S. 301 since the project was announced.

“I think it is this road project as well as the community college project at the old Lee Motor Co. that has helped to create additional confidence in development along this section of 301,”  he said. “These developments along with others in Wilson, like the rebuilding of the McDonald’s, all help to create confidence that this is a good place for business.”

Officials said the contractors would determine the construction timeline along with potential traffic delays.

“With any road construction project, there will be inconvenience, but I do think the end project will be worth it,”  Lentz said.

With sidewalks and bike paths incorporated into the project, officials said they anticipate residents will appreciate the increased accessibility to businesses and schools.

“Instead of 301 being a barrier like it is for moving around, it should be much safer,”  he said. “I think this project should really enhance the quality of life for people near this section of 301.”

For more information on the project, visit www.WilsonNC.org/TIGER.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2017, 09:28:10 AM
A contract has been awarded for the widening of a section of US-301 Bypass in Rocky Mount, between May Drive and Benvenue Road.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13978 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13978)

Quote
RALEIGH–A wider Rocky Mount Bypass is one step closer to reality as the N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $28-million contract for the project to PLT-RBP JV Construction of Wilson.

The two-mile section of the U.S. 301 Bypass between just south of May Drive and Benvenue Road will widen from 4 lanes to 6 lanes by adding an additional lane in each direction with a hybrid synchronized street design. It will modify most intersections to limit cross-over traffic and in turn improve safety and congestion.

Two bridges will also be replaced — one over Stony Creek, with the new bridge better able to handle potential floodwaters, and the other over U.S. 64 to improve height clearance and accommodate road widening.

The project can begin as early as June 26 and is scheduled to finish by November 2019. Additional vegetation work can continue through April 2020.

Due to the high volume of commuters that use this route, work will primarily take place at night. Contractors are required to keep the U.S. 301 Bypass open each day between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11 p.m. They are also prohibited from closing any nearby road on weekdays from 6 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 20, 2017, 10:31:46 AM
^ Looks like some Superstreet concepts will be included in that one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 09:49:21 AM
Property acquisition is underway in Goldsboro for the widening of US-117/US-117 Business (North William Street) between US-70 and US-70 Bypass.

http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/06/21/street_widening_project_threatens_properties/ (http://www.newsargus.com/news/archives/2017/06/21/street_widening_project_threatens_properties/)

Quote
More than 80 parcels of property along North William Street (U.S. 117 North) will be affected by right of-way acquisition for a $21 million highway improvement plan.

That property acquisition already is under way for the project that will transform the street into a four-lane, median-divided highway between U.S. 70 and the new U.S. 70 Bypass.

North William Street currently varies from two to four lanes and is either undivided or features two-way left-turn lanes for the median.

The state plans to widen the street to 12-foot-wide inside lanes and 14-foot-wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic.

It would include a 17.6-foot median along North William Street from the U.S. 70 westbound ramp to Tommy's Road to reduce traffic conflict points and improve north-south traffic flow.

Some sections of the median would be grass, while the narrower sections, where turns will be allowed, would be concrete.

Median openings will be installed at select locations along the street to accommodate U-turns and left-turning traffic from side streets.

The U.S. 117 Alternate/North William Street intersection would be realigned to reduce conflicting turning movements where there are no signals.

The project is included in the 2016-25 State Transportation Improvement Program.

The state initially set aside nearly $1 million for right of way. However, Matt Clarke, state Department of Transportation Division 4 project engineer, said he is "fairly confident" more will be needed.

"The official right-of-way plans were submitted on March 16 of this year," he said. "I would assume some property owners have been contacted by the right-of-way agents. There are 83 parcels on this project. Some of the parcels are owned by the same owners, but there are 83 total that looks like will be impacted.

"The total business and residential locations, I am not sure of."

Also, the final project cost could vary based on right away and other factors such as utility relocation expenses, he said.

Bids are scheduled to be let in August 2018, with construction expected to take 18 to 24 months to complete.

Once construction gets underway, motorists can expect detours and delays, Clarke said.

"One thing about this thought, it is going to be constructed so that traffic can be maintained on William Street," he said. "There may be some times when there may be some impacts, but there will be some lane shifts and a lane may need to be narrowed. But traffic will be maintained on the routes."

There may be a case where occasionally traffic might need to be detoured to do some kind of work, but most closures more than likely would be done late at night, he said.

The project was the subject of a June 2016, public meeting at the Goldsboro Event Center.

Clarke said that a lot of the residents and business owners who attended the meeting appeared positive toward the change even though they might be affected.

The public response was good, and based on public comments the plan design was adjusted where possible to lessen the impact, Clarke said.

The roadway alignment was maybe shifted in some locations were possible, he said.

"We did take the comments and where possible, tried to make adjustments when it was financially and also practically possible," Clarke said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 07:51:30 PM
The Superstreet craze continues...this time on US-74 in Indian Trail.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13983 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=13983)

Quote
CHARLOTTE — Several intersections along U.S. 74 in Indian Trail will undergo some changes as part of a $9.5 million project that will get underway tonight, June 20, weather permitting.

The project includes converting four full-movement, signalized intersections to superstreets, a type of intersection where side-street traffic is redirected from going straight through or left at a divided highway intersection.

Instead, all side- street traffic must turn right, but can then safely access a U-turn to proceed in the desired direction. This design improves safety by reducing the chance for intersection crashes, and decreases travel time because of simplified traffic signal timing.

The intersections are located along U.S. 74 at Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road/Sardis Church Road, Faith Church Road, Unionville-Indian Trail Road, and Indian Trail/Indian Trail-Fairview Road.

The contractor, Sealand Contractors Corp., will be permitted to close lanes on U.S. 74 between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The contract will also restrict lane closures during holidays and special events in Charlotte that may generate heavier traffic.

The project is scheduled for completion in November 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 21, 2017, 08:31:08 PM
There sure must be a major traffic need if NCDOT is upgrading US 74 and building a tollway bypass of it at the same time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on June 21, 2017, 09:12:28 PM
What I find interesting about NCDOT's superstreets is that it seems that NCDOT only uses mast arms and pole mounted signals rather than span wires seen elsewhere. Is there a reason NCDOT does this? Are they transitioning to mast arms only?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 21, 2017, 11:29:33 PM
I think they are.  All of the recent installations in Burke are not only mast arm, but the more decorative hunter green curved masts.  See all the new signals on the Enola Road project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2017, 11:55:10 PM
There sure must be a major traffic need if NCDOT is upgrading US 74 and building a tollway bypass of it at the same time.

My tinfoil hat had initially thought that NCDOT would leave US-74 as-is as a way of encouraging would-be shunpikers to take the toll road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 24, 2017, 01:35:30 PM
For those who wanted to know when NCDOT was going to make the US 17 route change, which was approved by AASHTO, happen, it has now happened.  Here is the paperwork: https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2017_05_17.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2017_05_17.pdf)

US 17 officially returns through Wilmington, along a different route; I-140/NC 140 is now its own thing.  Signage will probably be up soon, if not already.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 24, 2017, 02:57:30 PM
What's the new routing of US 17?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 24, 2017, 04:14:19 PM
Pages 15-16 of the "paperwork" Washu linked to describes it.  Page 60 has a map.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: epzik8 on June 25, 2017, 09:39:14 AM
Man, I really want I-140 to be extended out to west of Wilmington as soon as possible to expedite the trip for those taking U.S. 17 through Brunswick County to the Myrtle Beach area. I guess that's a few years away, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 25, 2017, 11:16:30 AM
Man, I really want I-140 to be extended out to west of Wilmington as soon as possible to expedite the trip for those taking U.S. 17 through Brunswick County to the Myrtle Beach area. I guess that's a few years away, though.

Construction on the gap section is to be completed in November of this year.  I expect NCDOT will submit a request to sign the entire route in the Fall AASHTO meeting in October for it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 25, 2017, 11:23:24 AM
Man, I really want I-140 to be extended out to west of Wilmington as soon as possible to expedite the trip for those taking U.S. 17 through Brunswick County to the Myrtle Beach area. I guess that's a few years away, though.

Construction on the gap section is to be completed in November of this year.  I expect NCDOT will submit a request to sign the entire route in the Fall AASHTO meeting in October for it.

According to NCDOT's progress report page, the completion date was changed to June 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 25, 2017, 02:33:05 PM
According to NCDOT's progress report page, the completion date was changed to June 2018.

Well shit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on June 29, 2017, 05:58:49 PM
Included in today's NCDOT STIP announcement:

"Widening of I-85 from U.S. 74 to the South Carolina line in Gaston and Cleveland counties" (Division 11) and "I-85 Widening between west of U.S. 70 in Orange County to Durham." (Division 7) is now included in the STIP. Once completed, I-85 in NC will be a minimum of 6 lanes for the first marked 179 miles, from the SC line to north of Durham. Only the northernmost 55 miles of 85 in NC will be 4 lanes.

Additionally, by the time this project is complete, SCDOT is scheduled to have finished widening their stretch of 85 from Exit 80 to the state line. This would leave just 70 miles of four-laned I-85 between Charlotte and Atlanta (GA Mile 129 with current widening project to SC Mile 19). As someone who drives this stretch a lot, I can not express how welcome a relief this will be though the missing Georgia segment is particularly annoying due to the numerous hills that slows trucks way down on the stretch.

On an unrelated source of amusement, here is the Div. 12 release with placeholder text accidentally included

Quote
The accelerated projects include:
- Widening N.C. 105 from Clarks Creek Road to N.C. 105 Bypass in Watauga County by two years, from date to date;
- Modernizing Oakwoods Road from U.S. 421 to Main Street in Wilkes County, from date to date; and
- Widening N.C. 115 from U.S. 421 to Second Street in Wilkes County, from date to date.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 30, 2017, 09:11:53 PM
http://www.robesonian.com/news/100495/states-10-year-plan-includes-widening-i-95-to-8-lanes
Although its almost a decade away, it looks like NC will finally start widen I-95 to not only six, but eight lanes in two sections between Lumberton and Fayetteville and Dunn and I-40  Hopefully this inspire VA to do something similar with I-81
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 30, 2017, 09:47:49 PM
http://www.robesonian.com/news/100495/states-10-year-plan-includes-widening-i-95-to-8-lanes
Although its almost a decade away, it looks like NC will finally start widen I-95 to not only six, but eight lanes in two sections between Lumberton and Fayetteville and Dunn and I-40  Hopefully this inspire VA to do something similar with I-81

Don't hold your breath...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 01, 2017, 01:31:16 PM
http://www.robesonian.com/news/100495/states-10-year-plan-includes-widening-i-95-to-8-lanes
Although its almost a decade away, it looks like NC will finally start widen I-95 to not only six, but eight lanes in two sections between Lumberton and Fayetteville and Dunn and I-40  Hopefully this inspire VA to do something similar with I-81

Don't hold your breath...

You are talking about a state where Interstates from North Carolina stop before entering... I-73, I-74 and soon I-87.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 01, 2017, 01:41:34 PM
http://www.robesonian.com/news/100495/states-10-year-plan-includes-widening-i-95-to-8-lanes
Although its almost a decade away, it looks like NC will finally start widen I-95 to not only six, but eight lanes in two sections between Lumberton and Fayetteville and Dunn and I-40  Hopefully this inspire VA to do something similar with I-81

Don't hold your breath...

You are talking about a state where Interstates from North Carolina stop before entering... I-73, I-74 and soon I-87.

Don't forget I-785, since VA has no plans to upgrade US-29 in Danville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2017, 01:49:46 PM
It seems no other state wants anything to do with the Interstates North Carolina is building. Does that prove those Interstates are pure pork?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 01, 2017, 02:20:22 PM
It seems no other state wants anything to do with the Interstates North Carolina is building. Does that prove those Interstates are pure pork?

It just means that North Carolina borders on Virginia, which doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for anything outside defined metro areas (particularly in the north) these days.  The state/local jurisdictional arrangement in VA is different (commonwealth with functionally autonomous internal divisions) than NC (more conventional incorporated cities with regional MPO cooperatives as needed).  There's much more cooperation at state & local levels in NC; if a project is seen as benefiting the region, it stands a significantly greater chance of getting broad support across official strata than with VA, which tends to pit one metro area against another for allocation of statewide resources, with Northern Virginia (and occasionally Richmond/Petersburg or Hampton Roads) getting most of the developmental activity due to sheer population dominance.  The demand within a specific region tends to override any impetus for activities between those regions.  Of course, this places projects seen as providing benefits shared with other states ( i.e. I-73, I-87) at the very rear of that back shelf. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2017, 02:49:00 PM
It seems no other state wants anything to do with the Interstates North Carolina is building. Does that prove those Interstates are pure pork?
It just means that North Carolina borders on Virginia, which doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for anything outside defined metro areas (particularly in the north) these days.  The state/local jurisdictional arrangement in VA is different (commonwealth with functionally autonomous internal divisions) than NC (more conventional incorporated cities with regional MPO cooperatives as needed).  There's much more cooperation at state & local levels in NC; if a project is seen as benefiting the region, it stands a significantly greater chance of getting broad support across official strata than with VA, which tends to pit one metro area against another for allocation of statewide resources, with Northern Virginia (and occasionally Richmond/Petersburg or Hampton Roads) getting most of the developmental activity due to sheer population dominance.  The demand within a specific region tends to override any impetus for activities between those regions.  Of course, this places projects seen as providing benefits shared with other states ( i.e. I-73, I-87) at the very rear of that back shelf. 

It's not like Virginia didn't already build 4-lane interregional highways with town/city bypasses to the state line on all of those proposed routes already --
US-29  [785]
US-220  [73]
US-17  [87]

Interstate --
I-77  [74]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on July 01, 2017, 05:29:20 PM
To be fair, does 785 really even need to go beyond the interchange with 58 at the state line?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 01, 2017, 06:17:05 PM
http://www.robesonian.com/news/100495/states-10-year-plan-includes-widening-i-95-to-8-lanes
Although its almost a decade away, it looks like NC will finally start widen I-95 to not only six, but eight lanes in two sections between Lumberton and Fayetteville and Dunn and I-40  Hopefully this inspire VA to do something similar with I-81

Don't hold your breath...

You are talking about a state where Interstates from North Carolina stop before entering... I-73, I-74 and soon I-87.


Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2017, 06:36:56 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 01, 2017, 06:53:36 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.


Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 01, 2017, 07:18:54 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

 


Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.


Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

Pretty sure he meant 8 miles independent of I-77...

While there isn't any harm in Virginia signing it to I-81 or even to WV, not sure it benefits Virginia drivers that much.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 01, 2017, 07:51:11 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.
Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.
Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

No reason to.  No need.  No one consulted with them first.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 01, 2017, 09:26:34 PM
To be fair, does 785 really even need to go beyond the interchange with 58 at the state line?

Not really, but Danville is insisting that I-785 follow the length of the US-29 freeway and end at the US-29/US-29 Business split near Blairs.

Thing is, the Danville bypass does not meet interstate standards because the ramp merges at most of the interchanges are too short and the at-grade Elizabeth Street access will need to be closed or grade separated. VDOT has no plans to upgrade US-29. US-29 in NC between the state line and Reidsville is already interstate standard with a 70mph speed limit. Speed limit drops to 65mph as soon as you cross into VA.

Considering VA's attitude toward new interstates, I don't think I-785 will ever make it north of the US-58 interchange at the state line. VDOT removed the "Future I-785" signs a long time ago and just now re-posted those signs after much whining from Danville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 01, 2017, 09:38:56 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.
Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.
Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

No reason to.  No need.  No one consulted with them first.



No one consulted with them first? Find me a fact where no one consulted them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on July 01, 2017, 11:38:49 PM
Included in today's NCDOT STIP announcement:

"Widening of I-85 from U.S. 74 to the South Carolina line in Gaston and Cleveland counties" (Division 11) and "I-85 Widening between west of U.S. 70 in Orange County to Durham." (Division 7) is now included in the STIP. Once completed, I-85 in NC will be a minimum of 6 lanes for the first marked 179 miles, from the SC line to north of Durham. Only the northernmost 55 miles of 85 in NC will be 4 lanes.

Additionally, by the time this project is complete, SCDOT is scheduled to have finished widening their stretch of 85 from Exit 80 to the state line. This would leave just 70 miles of four-laned I-85 between Charlotte and Atlanta (GA Mile 129 with current widening project to SC Mile 19). As someone who drives this stretch a lot, I can not express how welcome a relief this will be though the missing Georgia segment is particularly annoying due to the numerous hills that slows trucks way down on the stretch.

That will be HUGE.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 12:29:11 AM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

 


Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.


Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

Pretty sure he meant 8 miles independent of I-77...

While there isn't any harm in Virginia signing it to I-81 or even to WV, not sure it benefits Virginia drivers that much.

Frankly, unless there's any activity within WV toward actually constructing I-74 (as well as I-73) in that state (yeah, right!!!), everything north of the current I-74/77 interchange in NC is a useless multiplex.  This is the one instance in which VA inaction regarding Interstates is actually appropriate.     
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 02, 2017, 04:41:23 PM
I read some of the new STIP today, is there a summary of expedited projects?

My biggest wish list item is now on for 2025, widening I-40 to 6 lanes from 321 to 77.

Also a "study" to widen 40 from 26 to NC9 now appears, this will be needed in 10-15 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 03, 2017, 12:26:06 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

 


Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.


Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

Pretty sure he meant 8 miles independent of I-77...

While there isn't any harm in Virginia signing it to I-81 or even to WV, not sure it benefits Virginia drivers that much.

Frankly, unless there's any activity within WV toward actually constructing I-74 (as well as I-73) in that state (yeah, right!!!), everything north of the current I-74/77 interchange in NC is a useless multiplex.  This is the one instance in which VA inaction regarding Interstates is actually appropriate.     
Agreed for now. Don't believe there's any point in VA signing I-74, whether they want to or not, until the route is completed through the Winston-Salem area. Then there would be a signed I-74 in NC for at least 140 continuous miles and potentially worthy of its extension up to I-81 in VA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 03, 2017, 12:35:30 PM
Technically I-74 is complete in Virginia as it is to follow I-77 entirely from West VA state line to NC state line. Virginia did not sign I-74 along I-77 for some reason.

 


Why should they?  NC only has about 8 miles signed south of the border, and WV has no segment of I-74 built.


Wrong. I-74 starts/ends at NC border with I-77 and then splits from I-77 and then "ends" at US 52.. that is 17 miles. They could have signed it at least to I-81.

Pretty sure he meant 8 miles independent of I-77...

While there isn't any harm in Virginia signing it to I-81 or even to WV, not sure it benefits Virginia drivers that much.

Frankly, unless there's any activity within WV toward actually constructing I-74 (as well as I-73) in that state (yeah, right!!!), everything north of the current I-74/77 interchange in NC is a useless multiplex.  This is the one instance in which VA inaction regarding Interstates is actually appropriate.     
Agreed for now. Don't believe there's any point in VA signing I-74, whether they want to or not, until the route is completed through the Winston-Salem area. Then there would be a signed I-74 in NC for at least 140 continuous miles and potentially worthy of its extension up to I-81 in VA.

Come to think of it, signing I-74 along I-77 but limiting signage to south of I-81 may be helpful in channeling Winston-Salem (and beyond) traffic from the I-81 corridor, once the portion of I-74 along US 52, along with the W-S bypass, is fully completed.  But anything further NW than the east I-77/81 junction would be pointless without a northern/western extension of I-74, which is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2017, 03:49:37 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on July 03, 2017, 03:56:42 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.

Agreed. I've always felt the route was mostly unnecessary even in NC so it's not surprising that the other states aren't bothering with building it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 03, 2017, 05:21:26 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.

Eh...at least South Carolina has been fighting like hell to get I-73 going. They just got a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and their senators recently met with the USDOT secretary trying to get funding, so I'll give SC credit for that. I think sooner or later they'll get the ball rolling.

Virginia, on the other hand, hasn't done jackshit except pass meaningless resolutions. The most recent bill isn't worth the paper it's printed on because it's required to be taken up for a vote again next year after this year's gubernatorial elections in November. It's basically a way of telling SW VA "there, we did something. Now STFU". Frank Wagner was the only gubernatorial candidate that gave a shit about transportation needs outside of (but not excluding) the usual urban areas (NoVA, Richmond, Hampton Roads). But as expected, he got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary. I didn't agree with him on everything, but it was very refreshing to hear a gubernatorial candidate realize that the status quo regarding infrastructure throughout the rest of the state isn't cutting it anymore.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2017, 05:38:23 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.
Eh...at least South Carolina has been fighting like hell to get I-73 going. They just got a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and their senators recently met with the USDOT secretary trying to get funding, so I'll give SC credit for that. I think sooner or later they'll get the ball rolling.

Virginia, on the other hand, hasn't done jackshit except pass meaningless resolutions. The most recent bill isn't worth the paper it's printed on because it's required to be taken up for a vote again next year after this year's gubernatorial elections in November. It's basically a way of telling SW VA "there, we did something. Now STFU". Frank Wagner was the only gubernatorial candidate that gave a shit about transportation needs outside of (but not excluding) the usual urban areas (NoVA, Richmond, Hampton Roads). But as expected, he got his ass handed to him in the GOP primary. I didn't agree with him on everything, but it was very refreshing to hear a gubernatorial candidate realize that the status quo regarding infrastructure throughout the rest of the state isn't cutting it anymore.

Virginia conducted a full location/EIS process for I-73 and that took 8 years to arrive at a FHWA-approved Final EIS and FHWA-approved Record of Decision.

Again, where is the $4 billion (actually that figure is about 5 years old now) going to come from?

The existing US-220 is a 4-lane divided highway of which 30% of the length is on limited access right-of-way.  If parts of it were only 2-lanes there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.  If parts of it were severely congested there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 03, 2017, 05:58:42 PM
Virginia conducted a full location/EIS process for I-73 and that took 8 years to arrive at a FHWA-approved Final EIS and FHWA-approved Record of Decision.

Again, where is the $4 billion (actually that figure is about 5 years old now) going to come from?

The existing US-220 is a 4-lane divided highway of which 30% of the length is on limited access right-of-way.  If parts of it were only 2-lanes there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.  If parts of it were severely congested there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.

Virginia dragged its feet through the eight year process.  The $4 billion is a lot of money, but nobody is talking about building all at once either; put $400 million for this section and $600 million for that section in the next 5-10 years and by 20-30 years you have an interstate like North Carolina did.

Whatever they decide with US 220 they will likely redo the environmental study again because it was years from the last.  They will again drag their feet on it while they allocate most of the highway dollars to Northern Virginia.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 03, 2017, 06:38:20 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.
I see no point in Virginia signing I-74, even if NC builds all of its section. I do hope Virginia builds I-73 to Roanoke eventually, although I'm certainly not optimistic about seeing it anytime in the next 20 years or so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 03, 2017, 07:12:03 PM
I doubt we'll see Interstate 74 signed in Virginia within the next 50 years, if ever. The same with 73. I have a feeling the two routes may never leave North Carolina.
I see no point in Virginia signing I-74, even if NC builds all of its section. I do hope Virginia builds I-73 to Roanoke eventually, although I'm certainly not optimistic about seeing it anytime in the next 20 years or so.


I-74 probably will not leave NC (the southeast extension to through the swamp to MB is probably not going to be built), and all three states are solely focused on fighting for and/or building I-73. That is the reason why I think I-74 should just end at I-73 instead of the proposed 75-mile concurrency throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 03, 2017, 07:43:11 PM
Virginia conducted a full location/EIS process for I-73 and that took 8 years to arrive at a FHWA-approved Final EIS and FHWA-approved Record of Decision.
Again, where is the $4 billion (actually that figure is about 5 years old now) going to come from?
The existing US-220 is a 4-lane divided highway of which 30% of the length is on limited access right-of-way.  If parts of it were only 2-lanes there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.  If parts of it were severely congested there would be a more compelling reason to build a new highway, but that is not the case.
Virginia dragged its feet through the eight year process.  The $4 billion is a lot of money, but nobody is talking about building all at once either; put $400 million for this section and $600 million for that section in the next 5-10 years and by 20-30 years you have an interstate like North Carolina did.
Whatever they decide with US 220 they will likely redo the environmental study again because it was years from the last.  They will again drag their feet on it while they allocate most of the highway dollars to Northern Virginia.

Eight years is about what it takes to go thru a location/EIS process on major freeway project, hold public hearings, get regulatory agency reviews, and proceed to approval of Final EIS and ROD.  An EIS Reevaluation is not a complicated process and would take a year or so.

As I said before, on I-73 to build fully usable SIU you can't break it up into 8 or 10 pieces, I see at best two major SIU and one minor SIU.

Most of existing I-73 in NC paralleled a 2-lane US-220.  Not the case in VA.

"Most of the highway dollars" do not go to NOVA, never has been the case, although with 1/4 of the state's population they do get a considerable sum.

Meanwhile a more basic priority in that region is finding the $500 million to complete the 4-laning of US-58 Hillsville-Stuart.  That takes priority over I-73 IMHO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on July 05, 2017, 10:32:23 AM
It seems no other state wants anything to do with the Interstates North Carolina is building. Does that prove those Interstates are pure pork?

It just means that North Carolina borders on Virginia, which doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for anything outside defined metro areas (particularly in the north) these days.  The state/local jurisdictional arrangement in VA is different (commonwealth with functionally autonomous internal divisions) than NC (more conventional incorporated cities with regional MPO cooperatives as needed).  There's much more cooperation at state & local levels in NC; if a project is seen as benefiting the region, it stands a significantly greater chance of getting broad support across official strata than with VA, which tends to pit one metro area against another for allocation of statewide resources, with Northern Virginia (and occasionally Richmond/Petersburg or Hampton Roads) getting most of the developmental activity due to sheer population dominance.  The demand within a specific region tends to override any impetus for activities between those regions.  Of course, this places projects seen as providing benefits shared with other states ( i.e. I-73, I-87) at the very rear of that back shelf.

Virginia is also heavily gerrymandered when it comes to General Assembly (House and Senate) districts to keep republicans in office -- most of them tax-adverse (but they have yet to meet a fee they had no problem increasing). Even though there have been calls to increase the gas tax to support increased highway maintenance (and new construction), the General Assembly weaseled out of doing what needed to be done by passing only a small increase in the wholesale tax (which was passed on to consumers anyway -- but the delegates could with a straight face tell voters they DID NOT vote to increase the gas tax). The last major push to add money for roads was under Gov. Jerry Baliles (1986 to 1990).

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 05, 2017, 11:46:55 AM
It seems no other state wants anything to do with the Interstates North Carolina is building. Does that prove those Interstates are pure pork?

It just means that North Carolina borders on Virginia, which doesn't seem to have much of an appetite for anything outside defined metro areas (particularly in the north) these days.  The state/local jurisdictional arrangement in VA is different (commonwealth with functionally autonomous internal divisions) than NC (more conventional incorporated cities with regional MPO cooperatives as needed).  There's much more cooperation at state & local levels in NC; if a project is seen as benefiting the region, it stands a significantly greater chance of getting broad support across official strata than with VA, which tends to pit one metro area against another for allocation of statewide resources, with Northern Virginia (and occasionally Richmond/Petersburg or Hampton Roads) getting most of the developmental activity due to sheer population dominance.  The demand within a specific region tends to override any impetus for activities between those regions.  Of course, this places projects seen as providing benefits shared with other states ( i.e. I-73, I-87) at the very rear of that back shelf.

Virginia is also heavily gerrymandered when it comes to General Assembly (House and Senate) districts to keep republicans in office -- most of them tax-adverse (but they have yet to meet a fee they had no problem increasing). Even though there have been calls to increase the gas tax to support increased highway maintenance (and new construction), the General Assembly weaseled out of doing what needed to be done by passing only a small increase in the wholesale tax (which was passed on to consumers anyway -- but the delegates could with a straight face tell voters they DID NOT vote to increase the gas tax). The last major push to add money for roads was under Gov. Jerry Baliles (1986 to 1990).

Bruce in Blacksburg


While Republicans are, at least in their present iteration, almost pathologically tax-averse (they tend to see taxes as essentially redistribution of income/resources, while fees are seen as much less so -- the functional equivalent of a "flat tax"), statewide road projects, especially those in rural or outlying areas, don't fare particularly well under a Democratic regime.  When the D's hold sway (unless there's a healthy dose of rural ones in the mix), they tend to funnel most transportation expenditures into urban-based mass transit projects as part of their own knee-jerk dismissal of roads and driving as either intrinsically harmful or at least outdated

No "win-win" situation to be seen here regardless of who wields the strings of both power and purse!  But VA's not unlike other states with a distinct urban/rural dichotomy; to get anything out of each faction's mainstream accomplished, a groundswell of project support from the area affected needs to be loud, continuous -- and, at times, just plan obnoxious (at least to those in power).  Sometimes sneaky works as well (bill "riders", backroom deals -- all the things associated with quasi-corrupt politics that actually kept the system rolling in days gone by).  It won't be nostalgia that brings effective politicking back -- just the accumulated detritus/shit from years of inaction.  Whether that happens sooner or later in any given jurisdiction is anyone's guess!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 05, 2017, 11:49:26 AM
Virginia is also heavily gerrymandered when it comes to General Assembly (House and Senate) districts to keep republicans in office -- most of them tax-adverse (but they have yet to meet a fee they had no problem increasing). Even though there have been calls to increase the gas tax to support increased highway maintenance (and new construction), the General Assembly weaseled out of doing what needed to be done by passing only a small increase in the wholesale tax (which was passed on to consumers anyway -- but the delegates could with a straight face tell voters they DID NOT vote to increase the gas tax). The last major push to add money for roads was under Gov. Jerry Baliles (1986 to 1990).
Bruce in Blacksburg

The state supreme court disagrees with that first claim about gerrymandering, per several recent rulings in the last decade.  Of course the Democrat Party ruled the General Assembly thru gerrymandering from about 1900 to 1990, often with 85-90% supermajorities in both houses, effectively one-party rule; since then the General Assembly has been much more balanced proportionally between the two parties.  [state Senate district boundaries can be and are periodically changed based on population distribution, unlike with the U.S. Senate which is based on entire states]

Virginia transportation tax funding has increased more than 50% over where it was 5 years ago --

http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/statewide/2017/commonwealth_transportation_board_approves six-year115943.asp
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD APPROVES SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
$18.6 billion in road, bridge, rail and public transportation improvements
...

"The Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) annual budget for Fiscal Year 2018 is $5.4 billion".

By far the largest budget of any VA state agency.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 05, 2017, 03:27:45 PM
NCDOT has added I-42 and I-87 to their "proposed route changes" page.  No estimated dates and no indication of what they are waiting on (sometimes these will say AASHTO or Ordinances...these just say future).

Only info is diagrams of the full corridors.  The I-42 one is still labeled as I-36...


https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Route-Changes.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 07, 2017, 10:18:14 PM
Are changes coming to how the NC Turnpike Authority collects tolls? 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/are-changes-coming-to-triangle.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 08, 2017, 01:46:41 PM
Are changes coming to how the NC Turnpike Authority collects tolls? 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/are-changes-coming-to-triangle.html

Not sure why NC would even consider a FLEX option on this road. The road is nowhere near congested and the whole reason it's tolled in the first place is to recoup the cost of building it. I wouldn't take that blog too seriously
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 08, 2017, 04:29:12 PM
^ You realize "that blog" is written by CanesFan27, right?  Who lives in the Raleigh area and has been an online roadgeek since the days of MTR...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 08, 2017, 07:36:40 PM
Are changes coming to how the NC Turnpike Authority collects tolls? 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/are-changes-coming-to-triangle.html

Not sure why NC would even consider a FLEX option on this road. The road is nowhere near congested and the whole reason it's tolled in the first place is to recoup the cost of building it. I wouldn't take that blog too seriously

I'm not saying they are.  When the news hit my Twitter feed, i was trying to think what possible changes could be made.  I've reached out to the person that posted on Twitter to see if they would share any additional information.  If they do or don't, it's something I think worth following.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 08, 2017, 07:39:30 PM
Sorry, I didn't know that it was created by someone on here... my response to it is still the same though. What exactly is wrong with the toll structure that's currently in place for this road?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 08, 2017, 08:01:21 PM
Sorry, I didn't know that it was created by someone on here... my response to it is still the same though. What exactly is wrong with the toll structure that's currently in place for this road?

Easy - shortening the length of time to pay. If 40% are non-tag holders and it's taking on average 25 days to pay they may be looking at new payment options to improve that time period.

They also could be looking at what other options can be done to increase the number of user that have transponders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on July 08, 2017, 10:14:17 PM
Sorry, I didn't know that it was created by someone on here... my response to it is still the same though. What exactly is wrong with the toll structure that's currently in place for this road?

Easy - shortening the length of time to pay. If 40% are non-tag holders and it's taking on average 25 days to pay they may be looking at new payment options to improve that time period.

They also could be looking at what other options can be done to increase the number of user that have transponders.

It seems counter-intuitive to me when you consider they charge non-tag holders 50% more.  That twitter account also states that the 40% are OCR'd (by a human). Uh...what?  Humans would have to check the very small percentage of plates it couldn't read accurately.  Maybe they meant 4%?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 16, 2017, 01:00:26 PM
pilotonline.com: New Bonner Bridge is bigger, stronger, taller and able to withstand the worst OBX climate offers (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-bonner-bridge-is-bigger-stronger-taller-and-able-to/article_1644df8b-226c-56a5-abde-4c47ac6dd4ca.html)

Quote
Bonner Bridge engineer Pablo Hernandez slowly motored the boat near a T-shaped structure rising almost 100 feet above Oregon Inlet.

Quote
Size matters in this unforgiving environment.

Quote
“Everything is bigger and heavier,”  he said. “Nothing here is routine.”

Quote
Men and machines up top, appearing miniature, lifted into place a 100-ton segment of concrete similar in shape to a roof truss, adding another piece to the road bed.

Quote
The $250 million span 2.8 miles long is built to last a century. Engineers ran the design through more than 100,000 computer simulations of the 45 worst storms to strike the Outer Banks in the past 160 years. The models included the worst possible inlet currents, the biggest waves and highest water levels. They even accounted for a big, out-of-control barge slamming into its supports.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 16, 2017, 03:18:46 PM
pilotonline.com: New Bonner Bridge is bigger, stronger, taller and able to withstand the worst OBX climate offers (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-bonner-bridge-is-bigger-stronger-taller-and-able-to/article_1644df8b-226c-56a5-abde-4c47ac6dd4ca.html)
Quote
The $250 million span 2.8 miles long is built to last a century. Engineers ran the design through more than 100,000 computer simulations of the 45 worst storms to strike the Outer Banks in the past 160 years. The models included the worst possible inlet currents, the biggest waves and highest water levels. They even accounted for a big, out-of-control barge slamming into its supports.

Much deeper foundations, much stronger reinforced concrete structures, overall length 1/2 mile more.

One of the criticisms was that it was too hostile an environment for a bridge.  I would disagree, as it is a matter of having robust enough engineering and enough length to handle any movement of the inlet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 16, 2017, 09:43:27 PM
pilotonline.com: New Bonner Bridge is bigger, stronger, taller and able to withstand the worst OBX climate offers (https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/new-bonner-bridge-is-bigger-stronger-taller-and-able-to/article_1644df8b-226c-56a5-abde-4c47ac6dd4ca.html)
Quote
The $250 million span 2.8 miles long is built to last a century. Engineers ran the design through more than 100,000 computer simulations of the 45 worst storms to strike the Outer Banks in the past 160 years. The models included the worst possible inlet currents, the biggest waves and highest water levels. They even accounted for a big, out-of-control barge slamming into its supports.

Much deeper foundations, much stronger reinforced concrete structures, overall length 1/2 mile more.

One of the criticisms was that it was too hostile an environment for a bridge.  I would disagree, as it is a matter of having robust enough engineering and enough length to handle any movement of the inlet.

Though it has been struck a few times by errant vessels, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, which stands in what amounts to open ocean, has survived just fine so far.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on July 19, 2017, 04:57:10 PM
Updated and more detailed drawings are finally available for the I-440 beltline rebuild in west Raleigh. https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440improvements

The only place where there is any significant decision remaining is over the Wade-440 interchange, with three alternatives (including one with double flyovers) still on the table.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on July 20, 2017, 12:30:30 AM
NCDOT has released their YouTube visualization for the East John/Old Monroe widening project in my hometown of Matthews and Indian Trail and, my goodness, this is SUPERSTREET MADNESS

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/EastJohnOldMonroe/

The stretch of road in question is about 6 miles or so and I counted about 24 U-turn pullouts. Three major road cross junctions look like they're going to be converted to right turn only junctions for the intersecting roads. This makes zero sense to me. First off, East John runs parellel to US 74,which lies just a mile east. Between this and the Monroe Expressway, I do not understand why we need to have three major arterial roads heading north south in the vicinity even if Indian Trail is growing quickly. Then to impede traffic on all the major east-west roads is another questionable decision. Potter in particular is a road I would actually consider more important than John due to it's connection from Matthews to Wesley Chapel and Waxhaw. A lot of roads in the county are being converted to roundabout intersections. No idea why superstreets are all the rage but it boggles my mind.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on July 20, 2017, 11:41:20 AM
NCDOT has released their YouTube visualization for the East John/Old Monroe widening project in my hometown of Matthews and Indian Trail and, my goodness, this is SUPERSTREET MADNESS

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/EastJohnOldMonroe/

The stretch of road in question is about 6 miles or so and I counted about 24 U-turn pullouts. Three major road cross junctions look like they're going to be converted to right turn only junctions for the intersecting roads. This makes zero sense to me. First off, East John runs parellel to US 74,which lies just a mile east. Between this and the Monroe Expressway, I do not understand why we need to have three major arterial roads heading north south in the vicinity even if Indian Trail is growing quickly. Then to impede traffic on all the major east-west roads is another questionable decision. Potter in particular is a road I would actually consider more important than John due to it's connection from Matthews to Wesley Chapel and Waxhaw. A lot of roads in the county are being converted to roundabout intersections. No idea why superstreets are all the rage but it boggles my mind.

I live in Matthews. The townspeople are furious with NCDOT, as nobody wants the superstreet to be built. Everyone agrees that John Street from downtown Matthews to I-485 has traffic issues, but the project will not solve the problem without ruining the vibe of the town. In my opinion, thru-traffic needs to be directed (or forced) onto US 74, which is already built or slated to be built into an expressway.

I can't believe that anyone at NCDOT would think a 4-lane superstreet with a full median and u-turn areas and a SPEED LIMIT OF 50 (double what it is now!) is a good fix for the 4-to-2 lane road through Matthews currently.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on July 20, 2017, 12:28:17 PM
If everyone was against it, it wouldn't have come out unscathed from public review.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on July 20, 2017, 12:55:46 PM
NCDOT has released their YouTube visualization for the East John/Old Monroe widening project in my hometown of Matthews and Indian Trail and, my goodness, this is SUPERSTREET MADNESS

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/EastJohnOldMonroe/

The stretch of road in question is about 6 miles or so and I counted about 24 U-turn pullouts. Three major road cross junctions look like they're going to be converted to right turn only junctions for the intersecting roads. This makes zero sense to me. First off, East John runs parellel to US 74,which lies just a mile east. Between this and the Monroe Expressway, I do not understand why we need to have three major arterial roads heading north south in the vicinity even if Indian Trail is growing quickly. Then to impede traffic on all the major east-west roads is another questionable decision. Potter in particular is a road I would actually consider more important than John due to it's connection from Matthews to Wesley Chapel and Waxhaw. A lot of roads in the county are being converted to roundabout intersections. No idea why superstreets are all the rage but it boggles my mind.

I live in Matthews. The townspeople are furious with NCDOT, as nobody wants the superstreet to be built. Everyone agrees that John Street from downtown Matthews to I-485 has traffic issues, but the project will not solve the problem without ruining the vibe of the town. In my opinion, thru-traffic needs to be directed (or forced) onto US 74, which is already built or slated to be built into an expressway.

I can't believe that anyone at NCDOT would think a 4-lane superstreet with a full median and u-turn areas and a SPEED LIMIT OF 50 (double what it is now!) is a good fix for the 4-to-2 lane road through Matthews currently.

I agree. Turning John St. into a superstreet would be like turning Tryon into an expressway through Uptown Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on July 20, 2017, 06:45:42 PM
If everyone was against it, it wouldn't have come out unscathed from public review.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,”  said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ”˜Beware of the Leopard.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 21, 2017, 03:31:39 PM
If everyone was against it, it wouldn't have come out unscathed from public review.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,”  said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ”˜Beware of the Leopard.”

I'm trying my damnedest to remember where the above comedic exchange came from, to no avail -- whether it be TV show, Python, Firesign Theatre, or other comedy troupe.  Please enlighten us as to its origin!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: noelbotevera on July 21, 2017, 03:41:08 PM
If everyone was against it, it wouldn't have come out unscathed from public review.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,”  said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ”˜Beware of the Leopard.”

I'm trying my damnedest to remember where the above comedic exchange came from, to no avail -- whether it be TV show, Python, Firesign Theatre, or other comedy troupe.  Please enlighten us as to its origin!
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, from 1972 (I believe).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 21, 2017, 04:23:27 PM
If everyone was against it, it wouldn't have come out unscathed from public review.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,”  said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ”˜Beware of the Leopard.”

I'm trying my damnedest to remember where the above comedic exchange came from, to no avail -- whether it be TV show, Python, Firesign Theatre, or other comedy troupe.  Please enlighten us as to its origin!
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, from 1972 (I believe).

Thanks!  Haven't perused that for at least 30+ years; IIRC I've got a copy in my storage space; will have to look for it at some point.  Sounds almost Pythonesque in its syntax and the insertion of the unexpected factor (the leopard reference); I would have obsessively gone through my M.P. LP's trying to find it; you saved me and my stylus a lot of trouble and wear!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 21, 2017, 09:37:05 PM
There is also a plan to convert NC 150 between NC16 and I77 to a superstreet, the simulated ariel video is crazy, but this will act as a fledgeling outer loop of Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on July 22, 2017, 10:02:52 AM
There is also a plan to convert NC 150 between NC16 and I77 to a superstreet, the simulated ariel video is crazy, but this will act as a fledgeling outer loop of Charlotte.
I have seen this too, and NC 150 definitely needs some improvement. The increase in lake traffic is getting to be too much for the current road. I travel on 150 frequently, and a 4-lane highway would be nice.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 22, 2017, 10:24:12 AM
Since we're on the subject of widening roads, I would like to add NC-86 between Danville and Hillsborough to the list. It carries a good deal of traffic for a rural 2-lane road, especially semis.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 22, 2017, 10:39:25 AM
Since we're on the subject of widening roads, I would like to add NC-86 between Danville and Hillsborough to the list. It carries a good deal of traffic for a rural 2-lane road, especially semis.
Long-term plans are to turn NC 86 into an 4-lane expressway between the 2 cities. How long this will be is uncertain. There is no project to widen the road north of Hillsborough in the 2018-2027 Draft STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 22, 2017, 11:07:27 AM
Since we're on the subject of widening roads, I would like to add NC-86 between Danville and Hillsborough to the list. It carries a good deal of traffic for a rural 2-lane road, especially semis.
Long-term plans are to turn NC 86 into an 4-lane expressway between the 2 cities. How long this will be is uncertain. There is no project to widen the road north of Hillsborough in the 2018-2027 Draft STIP.

Not surprising that it's not in the STIP given other needs in the state, but I'm glad it's on the books at least. A lot of truck traffic uses NC-86 to get to the Triangle from US-29 and vice-versa. It sucks getting caught up in convoys.

I know 4-laning rural highways is often frowned upon in this forum, especially where NC is involved, but NC-86 definitely needs it.

The first section that needs to be widened, IMO, is between Danville and Yanceyville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 24, 2017, 11:59:26 AM
NCDOT may open I-785 section of Greenboro Urban Loop from US 70 to US 29 as early as October (probably explains the appearance of I-785 signs in recent months at I-85/I-40/Loop interchange). The western section from I-73/Bryan Blvd to US 220/Battleground Rd should be open by the end of the year. This article talks about those projects and others in the Greensboro area:
http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html (http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 24, 2017, 12:52:11 PM
NCDOT may open I-785 section of Greenboro Urban Loop from US 70 to US 29 as early as October (probably explains the appearance of I-785 signs in recent months at I-85/I-40/Loop interchange). The western section from I-73/Bryan Blvd to US 220/Battleground Rd should be open by the end of the year. This article talks about those projects and others in the Greensboro area:
http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html (http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html)

I wonder how far down the road will NCDOT secure funding to begin upgrading US 29 to interstate standards? I know I-785 has been on the radar for a long time now but it seems to be getting nowhere outside of the loop
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 24, 2017, 01:00:54 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 24, 2017, 01:41:05 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?

Given NCDOT's tendency to continue to sign US routes along their original alignments when a parallel Interstate freeway is deployed, it would be probable that US 220 will continue along its present routing through Greensboro.  The multiplexing of US 220 with I-73/74 along the N-S segment south of Greensboro is something of an anomaly within the state; unless the newer freeway sits atop or immediately adjacent to the original highway, the original number is retained on the original alignment.  The only "stub" currently signed as I-74 in greater WS is actually south of I-40, multiplexed with US 311.  Once the E loop is opened, it's probably that the stub will revert back to US 311 -- although it's more than likely the EB I-40 BGS's will include "TO I-74 EAST" along with the US 311 reference, as the distance between the present route's I-40 divergence and the location of the loop is only about 3 miles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 24, 2017, 02:10:26 PM
NCDOT may open I-785 section of Greenboro Urban Loop from US 70 to US 29 as early as October (probably explains the appearance of I-785 signs in recent months at I-85/I-40/Loop interchange). The western section from I-73/Bryan Blvd to US 220/Battleground Rd should be open by the end of the year. This article talks about those projects and others in the Greensboro area:
http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html (http://www.greensboro.com/news/government/new-spending-plan-focuses-on-wrapping-up-big-projects/article_63aac2ec-6f3f-11e7-9bda-cbda4605090b.html)

I wonder how far down the road will NCDOT secure funding to begin upgrading US 29 to interstate standards? I know I-785 has been on the radar for a long time now but it seems to be getting nowhere outside of the loop

Probably not for at least 10 years. I-785 is pretty far down their list compared with other much needed upgrades, such as the US-70/Future I-42 corridor. US-29 between Reidsville and the VA state line is already interstate standard with a 70mph speed limit. The remaining section between Reidsville and the Greensboro loop shouldn't be too difficult to upgrade. I know Danville has been kicking and screaming for I-785 to get done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 24, 2017, 03:11:24 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?


US 220 will not be routed along I-73 and Greensboro loop. US 220 will remain on the current route through Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 24, 2017, 10:21:03 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to install LED lights along major highways throughout the state.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14134 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14134)

Quote
RALEIGH — It will be a brighter drive along many interstates and major highways in North Carolina, as a result of a $30.8 million contract awarded by the N.C. Department of Transportation to upgrade more than 10,600 roadway light fixtures at more than 350 locations across the state.

In addition to improved lighting, the agreement with Trane U.S. Inc. and J. Brady Contracting, Inc. will also save the state money, as it is expected to result in more than $56 million in reduced electrical and maintenance costs over the 15-years. That savings will primarily come from switching from existing high intensity roadway lights to longer-lasting and lower-maintenance LED lights.

Improvements are planned for lights along such interstates as I-95, I-40, I-77 and I-85, as well as I-440 and 540, and the Triangle Expressway in the Raleigh-Durham area, I-485 and I-277 in Charlotte, I-73/74 in the Triad, and I-240 and I-26 around Asheville. Several non-interstate highways around the state will also see lighting improvements.

The contract also calls for upgrading more than 12,000 building lights, including those at rest stops and visitor centers around the state, in addition to weigh stations and NCDOT county maintenance facilities.

The project includes the installation of a lighting and control system that will not only support the maintenance of the lights, but it will also save and measure energy usage and lower costs.

Construction work is scheduled to start in September of 2017, with the initial locations still being determined. The light and equipment installation should wrap up in November 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 25, 2017, 09:18:49 AM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?

Given NCDOT's tendency to continue to sign US routes along their original alignments when a parallel Interstate freeway is deployed, it would be probable that US 220 will continue along its present routing through Greensboro.

US 421 would like to talk to you about that...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2017, 04:02:39 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?

Given NCDOT's tendency to continue to sign US routes along their original alignments when a parallel Interstate freeway is deployed, it would be probable that US 220 will continue along its present routing through Greensboro.

US 421 would like to talk to you about that...

Like the English language, there's always an exception to any assumption somewhere (especially with NC signage practices)!  Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that a SB I-73/NB I-85 "loop" of US 421 is preferable to the previous path down the downtown-routed I-40, as it eliminates some surface street running.  But I still think US 220 will retain its present direct route through central Greensboro rather than shift to I-73, which is effectively a western beltway; there's likely some benefit seen to maintaining a moderate level of traffic on the original alignment because of its proximity to centrally-located businesses and other points of interest. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 25, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?

Given NCDOT's tendency to continue to sign US routes along their original alignments when a parallel Interstate freeway is deployed, it would be probable that US 220 will continue along its present routing through Greensboro.

US 421 would like to talk to you about that...

Like the English language, there's always an exception to any assumption somewhere (especially with NC signage practices)!  Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that a SB I-73/NB I-85 "loop" of US 421 is preferable to the previous path down the downtown-routed I-40, as it eliminates some surface street running.  But I still think US 220 will retain its present direct route through central Greensboro rather than shift to I-73, which is effectively a western beltway; there's likely some benefit seen to maintaining a moderate level of traffic on the original alignment because of its proximity to centrally-located businesses and other points of interest. 

I think for North Carolina the "rules" can only be looked at city by city.  For example, Raleigh moved everything to the beltway, then moved it back later.

Charlotte has left everything through the city.  Durham put Business routes through the city.

Greensboro has historically taken their routes out...even NC 6, so I'm in the camp of believing US 220 will end up on the Greensboro Loop.

What will Fayetteville do with US 401 once I-295 is finished further along...?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 25, 2017, 05:24:09 PM
Do you foresee US 220 being routed along the south/west sides of the Greensboro loop one the next segment opens?

With I-74 to follow the east loop of the WS beltway, what will happen with the stub of the current I-74 north of I-40?

Given NCDOT's tendency to continue to sign US routes along their original alignments when a parallel Interstate freeway is deployed, it would be probable that US 220 will continue along its present routing through Greensboro.

US 421 would like to talk to you about that...

Like the English language, there's always an exception to any assumption somewhere (especially with NC signage practices)!  Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that a SB I-73/NB I-85 "loop" of US 421 is preferable to the previous path down the downtown-routed I-40, as it eliminates some surface street running.  But I still think US 220 will retain its present direct route through central Greensboro rather than shift to I-73, which is effectively a western beltway; there's likely some benefit seen to maintaining a moderate level of traffic on the original alignment because of its proximity to centrally-located businesses and other points of interest. 

I think for North Carolina the "rules" can only be looked at city by city.  For example, Raleigh moved everything to the beltway, then moved it back later.

Charlotte has left everything through the city.  Durham put Business routes through the city.

Greensboro has historically taken their routes out...even NC 6, so I'm in the camp of believing US 220 will end up on the Greensboro Loop.

What will Fayetteville do with US 401 once I-295 is finished further along...?

Yet US 70 hasn't moved nor  has 29.

I think 220 could indeed move as it would be a shorter route along the loop then if it stayed inside.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on July 25, 2017, 06:52:38 PM
US 29 and US 70 have totally moved onto the O'Henry Boulevard old school freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 25, 2017, 10:12:46 PM
Yet US 70 hasn't moved nor  has 29.

I think 220 could indeed move as it would be a shorter route along the loop then if it stayed inside.

Well... US 29/US 70 have moved in the past to where they are now.

I'm in the camp US 220 will not move.  I believe I-73 is using US 220 as it's faux business route through Greensboro and there is no plans to change US 220's destination city to a bypass route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 25, 2017, 10:38:29 PM

NCDOT spokesperson has told me in the past that they are not going to move US 220 when I-73 opened all the way to US 220. So, US 220 will remain as is. US 29 won't be moved either.

US 70.. however, might be a different story. In the local transportation project update (2015), the map showed US 70 being rerouted along I-40/Bus 85 east to I-840/I-785 then route it with I-840/I-785 before meeting and heading back on its original routing (Exit 19). However, I didn't see any proposals for it, so I believe it might be an error. But, take it with a grain of salt. Here is the link below:

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4879



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 26, 2017, 08:15:52 AM

NCDOT spokesperson has told me in the past that they are not going to move US 220 when I-73 opened all the way to US 220. So, US 220 will remain as is. US 29 won't be moved either.

US 70.. however, might be a different story. In the local transportation project update (2015), the map showed US 70 being rerouted along I-40/Bus 85 east to I-840/I-785 then route it with I-840/I-785 before meeting and heading back on its original routing (Exit 19). However, I didn't see any proposals for it, so I believe it might be an error. But, take it with a grain of salt. Here is the link below:

http://www.greensboro-nc.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4879

I do not believe they are moving US 70 because they could have already done so years ago.  Since that stub was opened, it was signed as "To US 70."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 26, 2017, 09:24:36 AM
US 29 and US 70 have totally moved onto the O'Henry Boulevard old school freeway.

As has 220 for that matter. Sorry, i Should have been more clear. 70 and 29 currently remain with the loop and in 70s case it does route on surface streets within the city limits like 220.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on July 26, 2017, 11:48:38 AM
I wonder if the US routes routing are tied more to a Regional NCDOT culture or decision making process due to the way these are routed throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 28, 2017, 04:22:45 PM
Construction crews working on the new Bonner Bridge struck an underground cable, knocking out power to Ocracoke and Hatteras islands. Oops...

http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/local/regional/mandatory-evacuation-on-ocracoke-island-after-obx-power-outage-fix-could-take-weeks/460027899 (http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/local/regional/mandatory-evacuation-on-ocracoke-island-after-obx-power-outage-fix-could-take-weeks/460027899)

Quote
BUXTON, N.C. - Two islands along North Carolina's Outer Banks are completely without power, and authorities are mandating non-residents and tourists to evacuate as residents prepare for an extended outage.

Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative officials said in a Facebook post Thursday that the breaker at Oregon Inlet was tripped about 4:30 a.m., causing a full outage for Hatteras and Ocracoke islands. Several hours later, crews found a fault on the transmission cable attached to the Bonner Bridge that has been under construction.
 
The spots are popular among tourists and summer vacationers from up and down the East Coast. Officials report about 9,000 customers are without power on the two islands – with over 7,700 on Hatteras alone.

Officials attributed the cause of the outage to contractors with PCL Construction, the company building the new Bonner Bridge, who reportedly drove a piling though an underground cable.

As crews worked to restore the outage, all non-residents have been mandated to evacuate Ocracoke Island. However, it has been said that the outage 'could last weeks.'

Residents are asked to immediately shut off all non-essential breakers, limit electric use to refrigerators and fans and avoid running air conditioning units once generators are operational.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2017, 06:04:44 PM
Big oops.  And the contractor will likely end up with the bill since they were apparently the ones at fault...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2017, 09:28:16 PM
Big oops.  And the contractor will likely end up with the bill since they were apparently the ones at fault...

It's a safe bet. Gov. Roy Cooper has already declared a state of emergency for those islands.

https://www.ncdps.gov/gov-cooper-signs-state-emergency-hatteras-ocracoke-islands (https://www.ncdps.gov/gov-cooper-signs-state-emergency-hatteras-ocracoke-islands)

Oh yeah, somebody's gonna be shelling out some $$$...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 29, 2017, 11:35:53 PM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey

Earlier today, a trip to the attic ended up with me checking out a box of NC maps I hadn't touched in probably five years.  WIthin the box was a 2004 map of Raleigh that had a few clues (two map errors of roads not even built yet) on the Northern Durham Parkway/NC 472.  Some further digging lead to a blog entry about the proposals for this route and the map errors. 

The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps.  However, there is no funding for this highway at the moment....so time will tell.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 30, 2017, 04:33:12 AM
The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

I doubt I-shields will be involved if the freeway option is chosen. It will be difficult to explain to AASHTO the need for an interstate there when Future I-885/NC-147 (toll) already serves as a connector between 540 and I-85 and is in fairly close proximity to the proposed parkway, not to mention that NCDOT plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway between I-540 and NC-147/East End Connector. I can't see AASHTO approving the parkway as an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2017, 04:42:42 PM
How many more Interstates does North Carolina need?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 31, 2017, 06:26:19 PM
How many more Interstates does North Carolina need?

As many as however many highways that meet standards and connect to the existing interstate system allow.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 31, 2017, 06:33:31 PM
The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

I doubt I-shields will be involved if the freeway option is chosen. It will be difficult to explain to AASHTO the need for an interstate there when Future I-885/NC-147 (toll) already serves as a connector between 540 and I-85 and is in fairly close proximity to the proposed parkway, not to mention that NCDOT plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway between I-540 and NC-147/East End Connector. I can't see AASHTO approving the parkway as an interstate.
I agree. Here in Durham we really want the East End Connector (Future I-885), now under construction. I don't hear anyone wanting another freeway connection to I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2017, 11:19:59 PM
The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps. 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

I doubt I-shields will be involved if the freeway option is chosen. It will be difficult to explain to AASHTO the need for an interstate there when Future I-885/NC-147 (toll) already serves as a connector between 540 and I-85 and is in fairly close proximity to the proposed parkway, not to mention that NCDOT plans to upgrade US-70 to a freeway between I-540 and NC-147/East End Connector. I can't see AASHTO approving the parkway as an interstate.
I agree. Here in Durham we really want the East End Connector (Future I-885), now under construction. I don't hear anyone wanting another freeway connection to I-85.

Speaking of I-85, are there any plans afoot for bringing that freeway out to beyond 4 lanes (total) north of Durham?  Several members of my GF's family live in the Oxford-Henderson corridor -- and I'm always hearing complaints about the state of I-85 into Durham (narrow, short lines-of-sight, etc.). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on July 31, 2017, 11:28:05 PM
They reconstructed the 4-lane Durham to Oxford section of I-85 about 8 or so years ago, and now they are doing Henderson to the state line. No widening, just complete pavement reconstruction and spot upgrades (I had hopes they were going to relocate the US-1 South ramp to the right hand side, but that isn't happening). The biggest noticeable difference is the tree clearing along the shoulder to widen the "clear zone" current standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2017, 11:37:52 PM
Speaking of I-85, are there any plans afoot for bringing that freeway out to beyond 4 lanes (total) north of Durham?  Several members of my GF's family live in the Oxford-Henderson corridor -- and I'm always hearing complaints about the state of I-85 into Durham (narrow, short lines-of-sight, etc.). 
They reconstructed the 4-lane Durham to Oxford section of I-85 about 8 or so years ago, and now they are doing Henderson to the state line. No widening, just complete pavement reconstruction and spot upgrades (I had hopes they were going to relocate the US-1 South ramp to the right hand side, but that isn't happening). The biggest noticeable difference is the tree clearing along the shoulder to widen the "clear zone" current standards.

Since the last complaints I fielded from the local folks were a little less than a year ago, I'm guessing that the pavement rehab didn't do much for the basic old-school geometry.  Knowing that family as I do, the last thing they'd probably notice would be any difference with the adjacent trees!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2017, 06:58:01 AM
I had to take my mother to Durham yesterday for her doctor's appointment at Duke. If there's any part of I-85 that needs widening in that area first IMO, it's the 4-lane section between Durham and I-40.

On another note, I also ran into heavy backups on NC-86 in Yanceyville due to a resurfacing project, which doesn't look like is going to end anytime soon. I came through last week and sat for nearly half an hour. It backed up and lasted to the point that truck drivers were getting pissed off and started blowing their loud ass horns at the guy holding one of those signs that says "slow/stop" on either side of it to get him to let us through and I mean laying on the horns. I ended up taking US-501 from Durham to US-58 in South Boston during yesterday's trip back to the house. It added roughly 20 extra miles than NC-86, but traffic flowed better and unlike NC-86, US-501 was 4 lanes most of the way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2017, 08:15:09 AM
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the contractor building the Bonner Bridge due to the power outage.

http://www.wral.com/lawsuit-filed-against-company-accused-of-causing-outer-banks-power-outage/16852161/ (http://www.wral.com/lawsuit-filed-against-company-accused-of-causing-outer-banks-power-outage/16852161/)

Quote
OCRACOKE, N.C. – A class action lawsuit has been filed against the company whose contractors accidentally severed transmission lines, causing an extended power outage to the southern half of the Outer Banks.

PCL Construction, a contractor working on the Bonner Bridge replacement, accidentally severed last Thursday two of the three underwater transmission lines supplying power to Hatteras and Ocracoke islands.

Gov. Roy Cooper on Thursday declared a state of emergency and a mandatory evacuation was put into place for both islands. About 40,000 to 50,000 people had been evacuated from the island as of Monday evening, while approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people remain.

"The island has been evacuated, nobody is there. They do not have people coming into their businesses," said attorney Matt Lee with Whitfield Bryson and Mason.

On Monday, a class action suit was filed by Whitfield Bryson and Mason on behalf of two people who own homes used as vacation rentals as well as an art gallery owner, who said their properties have been negatively impacted by the outage.

"We all saw on the news last week when the power line got hit," Lee said. "We realized there were a lot of people out there who needed help navigating the system."

The lawsuit claims that, due to the uncertainty of when repairs to fully restore power will be completed, those named in the suit have “been devastated because of lost rentals, tourist and business income during the peak tourist season.”

The lawsuit also asserts that tourists have canceled plans to visit the island through the rest of tourist season because of the lingering uncertainty surrounding repairs.

Susan Flythe, the general manager of the electric co-op, said crews have already spliced one of the damaged cables and are digging up the second one. The utility also is putting up an overhead transmission line from the Bonner Bridge to existing lines on Hatteras Island, she said.

Flythe said crews are working on both plans until it's clear which is fastest and safest. Depending on the approach, rrepairs could take one to two weeks, she said.

The lawsuit is seeking damages from PLC, stating they could have prevented the power outage by “using proper risk management practices, following industry standards, following required safety protocols and precautionary procedures and properly maintaining equipment.”

“Moreover, because their conduct endangered the health and safety of a large region and population, caused and increased the risk of serious injury and bodily harm, and affected a financially vulnerable population dependent on tourism and vacationers during this time of year, the degree of reprehensibility of PLC’s conduct is at the highest level,”  the lawsuit states.

Cooper visited businesses in Rodanthe on Monday to see firsthand the impact of the outage on the local economy. He praised coastal residents as resilient, noting they have weathered many storm-related outages in the past.

Cooper said his staff and the Attorney General's Office will work to see if business owners and tourists who have lost money can be reimbursed. Numerous tourists have said vacation rental agencies are refusing to refund the money they paid for homes they cannot stay in this week because of the evacuation, insisting that refunds are provided only in the event of a natural disaster.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on August 01, 2017, 08:30:25 AM
Numerous tourists have said vacation rental agencies are refusing to refund the money they paid for homes they cannot stay in this week because of the evacuation, insisting that refunds are provided only in the event of a natural disaster.
[/quote]

IIRC they have to refund them unless the renter was offered and declined insurance that would cover this.  I would imagine that the renters are entitled anyway as the rental would be considered 'unfit' with no power.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2017, 03:19:18 PM
Upcoming project on I-95 in Halifax and Northampton counties.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14175 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14175)

Quote
RALEIGH — Major pavement and bridge rehabilitation work will begin next month on nearly nine miles of Interstate 95 in Halifax and Northampton counties. It will cover the interstate between Chockoyotte Creek and the Virginia State line.

The highway improvements will include the ramps to and from the N.C. Welcome Center, with shoulder widening and guardrail installation also taking place where necessary.

In addition to the pavement work, the $16.8 million contract awarded by the N.C. Department of Transportation to Adams Construction Company of Roanoke calls for work on eight bridges across the two counties.

The bridge rehabilitation consists of new epoxy deck overlay on two bridges to prevent water from seeping into the structure. The other bridges will undergo minor concrete repairs and joint replacements, in addition to having their decks sealed in order to extend their life.

The locations of the Halifax County bridges in each direction are over U.S. 158, Becker Drive, CSX Railroad tracks and the Roanoke River.

The bridge work in Northampton County involves the I-95 North and South structures over the Roanoke River.

Work can begin as soon as August 28 and will be completed by October 2018. Additional vegetation work can continue through March 2019.

This was one of 16 highway and bridge project contracts recently awarded by the Department of Transportation. They were worth about $204.5 million, which was more than $13 million under DOT estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 03, 2017, 10:40:34 PM
Another new interstate possibly in the works? :hmm:

http://www.greensboro.com/business/is-there-a-megasite-highway-in-the-region-s-future/article_d3f6cdec-20ec-500f-a40c-050fe798d747.html (http://www.greensboro.com/business/is-there-a-megasite-highway-in-the-region-s-future/article_d3f6cdec-20ec-500f-a40c-050fe798d747.html)

Quote
GREENSBORO – On a Thursday morning full of what-ifs, economic developer Jed McMillan asked the N.C. Board of Transportation to ponder a biggie.

How about another interstate corridor coming into the Gate City besides Interstates 40, 85 and 73 – this one known colloquially as the N.C. Megasite Corridor?

McMillan, a vice president of the Piedmont Triad Partnership economic development group, urged the board during its monthly meeting at the O. Henry Hotel to upgrade about 100 miles of U.S. 421 to a future interstate highway.

The aim would be to link four so-called megasites from Moncure along U.S. 1, just off the southeastern leg of the corridor, to Piedmont Triad International Airport on the northwest, he told the board.

“Obviously, we’d like to rename the corridor because we are talking about connecting I-95 and I-85,”  McMillan said. “We would like to have it designated as a future interstate corridor – I don’t care if you call it I-885 or I-895.”

The board took no action on McMillan’s request, which came amid presentations by transportation planners from Greensboro, High Point, Burlington, Winston-Salem and the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation – all presenting their visions of the future for the 19-member board that controls transportation spending statewide.

McMillan assured the state board that a “red-white-and-blue shield”  that designates an interstate highway would be “the best marketing tool I can get”  for attracting major manufacturers.

“If that red-white-and-blue shield is on the road so it’s not 421, but it’s Interstate ”˜Whatever-it-is,’ that helps me more than anything,”  he said.

The megasites involved would include PTI’s aerospace center, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City and the Moncure Megasite in its namesake community in Chatham County.

An upgraded U.S. 421 would allow each site to claim ready access to the interstate system’s vast reaches, something that large-scale manufacturers covet, McMillan said.

“We are in a very unique situation where you have within 60 miles four megasites,”  he said, adding that if one site landed a huge manufacturing complex the others could benefit by providing space for the big fish’s suppliers.

The state transportation board’s chairman, Mike Fox of Greensboro, did not take a position on McMillan’s proposal, but he agreed afterward that U.S. 421 already has some features of an interstate highway that could make upgrading it less daunting than it might otherwise be.

In other action, the board unanimously adopted its multibillion dollar 2018-27 transportation improvement plan.

The group normally meets in Raleigh but gathered in Greensboro this week as part of an initiative to meet outside the capital occasionally to get a close-up look at transportation needs statewide.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 04, 2017, 12:08:08 AM
Another new interstate possibly in the works? :hmm:

http://www.greensboro.com/business/is-there-a-megasite-highway-in-the-region-s-future/article_d3f6cdec-20ec-500f-a40c-050fe798d747.html (http://www.greensboro.com/business/is-there-a-megasite-highway-in-the-region-s-future/article_d3f6cdec-20ec-500f-a40c-050fe798d747.html)

Quote
GREENSBORO – On a Thursday morning full of what-ifs, economic developer Jed McMillan asked the N.C. Board of Transportation to ponder a biggie.

How about another interstate corridor coming into the Gate City besides Interstates 40, 85 and 73 – this one known colloquially as the N.C. Megasite Corridor?

McMillan, a vice president of the Piedmont Triad Partnership economic development group, urged the board during its monthly meeting at the O. Henry Hotel to upgrade about 100 miles of U.S. 421 to a future interstate highway.

The aim would be to link four so-called megasites from Moncure along U.S. 1, just off the southeastern leg of the corridor, to Piedmont Triad International Airport on the northwest, he told the board.

“Obviously, we’d like to rename the corridor because we are talking about connecting I-95 and I-85,”  McMillan said. “We would like to have it designated as a future interstate corridor – I don’t care if you call it I-885 or I-895.”

The board took no action on McMillan’s request, which came amid presentations by transportation planners from Greensboro, High Point, Burlington, Winston-Salem and the Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation – all presenting their visions of the future for the 19-member board that controls transportation spending statewide.

McMillan assured the state board that a “red-white-and-blue shield”  that designates an interstate highway would be “the best marketing tool I can get”  for attracting major manufacturers.

“If that red-white-and-blue shield is on the road so it’s not 421, but it’s Interstate ”˜Whatever-it-is,’ that helps me more than anything,”  he said.

The megasites involved would include PTI’s aerospace center, the Greensboro-Randolph County project near Liberty, the Chatham Advanced Manufacturing site in Siler City and the Moncure Megasite in its namesake community in Chatham County.

An upgraded U.S. 421 would allow each site to claim ready access to the interstate system’s vast reaches, something that large-scale manufacturers covet, McMillan said.

“We are in a very unique situation where you have within 60 miles four megasites,”  he said, adding that if one site landed a huge manufacturing complex the others could benefit by providing space for the big fish’s suppliers.

The state transportation board’s chairman, Mike Fox of Greensboro, did not take a position on McMillan’s proposal, but he agreed afterward that U.S. 421 already has some features of an interstate highway that could make upgrading it less daunting than it might otherwise be.

In other action, the board unanimously adopted its multibillion dollar 2018-27 transportation improvement plan.

The group normally meets in Raleigh but gathered in Greensboro this week as part of an initiative to meet outside the capital occasionally to get a close-up look at transportation needs statewide.




Yeah I saw the news.. It is crazy. They want a interstate to connect I-85 and I-95 by upgrading US 421... meaning that the corridor will be from Greensboro to Fayetteville. I am not sure we need another interstate heading from Greensboro going southeast... (for me, I-40/73/85/I-785/I-840 in Greensboro should be enough), but with NCDOT, I won't be surprised if it is being suggested and got approved, but what will the interstate number be?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 04, 2017, 01:39:21 AM
Yeah I saw the news.. It is crazy. They want a interstate to connect I-85 and I-95 by upgrading US 421... meaning that the corridor will be from Greensboro to Fayetteville. I am not sure we need another interstate heading from Greensboro going southeast... (for me, I-40/73/85/I-785/I-840 in Greensboro should be enough), but with NCDOT, I won't be surprised if it is being suggested and got approved, but what will the interstate number be?

This is starting to look like a family issue:  one kid gets a new toy, and soon all the kids want a new toy of their own to play with!  Be that as it may, it'd probably receive an even number in the 30's; 36 is vacant within the state, but 38 would work as well -- it's that short route that's an extension of SC 38 that's part of the I-73 corridor. 

Question:  since the Moncure site is on the US 1 freeway that sits perpendicular to this corridor -- and if the corridor takes off down NC 87 to Fayetteville -- BTW, with a total mileage a hair under 100 -- might not there be some push to I-designate the US 1 corridor from this route near Sanford up to Raleigh -- perhaps as a I-87 extension?  Remember, this is NC -- at this point, I wouldn't put anything of this sort past these folks! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 04, 2017, 01:41:47 AM
The officials in NC would be even further past ridiculous if they even think about taking such a proposal seriously. That dude really wants to squeeze a corridor in between I-40 & I-73/74? Damn they might as well keep it going and have US 421 west of the Triad become an interstate too, all the way to the Appalachian Tri-Cities smdh. Seriously though, they don't even complete much shorter urban loops and spurs but they steady dream up more long distance interstate corridors. When will I-73 and I-74 be completed? Really to me I-74 (as a different #) should've just followed US 74 to Charlotte to connect that city to Wilmington, at least it would've made some sort of sense. Logic doesn't seem to be these planners' strong suit
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 04, 2017, 02:15:44 AM
The officials in NC would be even further past ridiculous if they even think about taking such a proposal seriously. That dude really wants to squeeze a corridor in between I-40 & I-73/74? Damn they might as well keep it going and have US 421 west of the Triad become an interstate too, all the way to the Appalachian Tri-Cities smdh. Seriously though, they don't even complete much shorter urban loops and spurs but they steady dream up more long distance interstate corridors. When will I-73 and I-74 be completed? Really to me I-74 (as a different #) should've just followed US 74 to Charlotte to connect that city to Wilmington, at least it would've made some sort of sense. Logic doesn't seem to be these planners' strong suit

Planners?  We're NC -- we don't need no stinking planners!  We want a new Interstate, we get a new Interstate.  And thanks for mentioning a E-W corridor via Charlotte and US 74; we'll get around to that one soon enough!  BTW, have you met our new intern?  Some kid named Fritz!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 04, 2017, 05:12:19 AM
The only way that interstate has a chance of happening is if it ends in Fayetteville. It would be much easier to get approved if it was sold as a way to link Fort Bragg to the Midwest via connections to I-77 (via I-40 & US-52/I-74), and I-73. Anytime the military is involved, support usually goes up tenfold, especially at the federal level. Eastern NC was very successful in getting their future/existing interstates because of that. I-42, I-87, and I-795 all have military base(s) along their corridors. I-587 is the only one that does not. Greenville's population and role as the economic and medical hub of eastern NC and the ease of upgrading an already freeway-grade US-264 made I-587 a shoe-in.

In addition to US-421, NC-87 would need upgraded as well as a bypass of Spring Lake along with upgrading the interchange with NC-295 (Future I-295).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on August 04, 2017, 09:10:43 AM
I'm not surprised by this at all. Lots of new numbers could work here, like I-79 to align with the Erie-Pittsburgh-Charleston route further north, or failing that, I-195, I-395, I-595, I-695, I-895 or I-995. Better yet, combine that with I-785 and probably make it a southern I-99! (ducks for cover)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 04, 2017, 12:32:35 PM
NCDOT has published its 2018-2027 Final STIP document. It is available in 2 volumes at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx)

Among items that caught my eye: Feasibility Study to upgrade US 64 to Interstate Standards from Raleigh to Williamston (I-87 corridor).
Widening I-85 from Durham to I-40 in Orange County to 6-lanes to start in 2023.
6 projects to upgrade intersections to interchanges or bridges along US 74 between Lumberton and Whiteville for Future I-74 to start by 2024.
No mention of any project to upgrade US 52 to Interstate Standards north of Winston-Salem for I-74, but a project to improve the I-40/US 52 interchange and add a lane along US 52 from south of Winston-Salem to the Future I-74 W-S Beltway interchange could help chances in getting I-285 signed.
Document now has map of projects at the start of each Division section.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 04, 2017, 01:17:46 PM
The officials in NC would be even further past ridiculous if they even think about taking such a proposal seriously. That dude really wants to squeeze a corridor in between I-40 & I-73/74? Damn they might as well keep it going and have US 421 west of the Triad become an interstate too, all the way to the Appalachian Tri-Cities smdh. Seriously though, they don't even complete much shorter urban loops and spurs but they steady dream up more long distance interstate corridors. When will I-73 and I-74 be completed? Really to me I-74 (as a different #) should've just followed US 74 to Charlotte to connect that city to Wilmington, at least it would've made some sort of sense. Logic doesn't seem to be these planners' strong suit


I-73/I-74 will be completed in the state within 20 years, since it seems like since NCDOT is so keen on adding more freeways that have some significance (or pointless), not counting I-42. Sorry, I still think I-87 is a unnecessary freeway at this time.

I think some planners in NCDOT seem to be out of control, OR.. they are trying to stay active. Maybe a competition against Texas for most interstates?

They should always complete freeways that has been on the planning stages since 1990s FIRST before moving on new freeways. Apparently that isn't the case in here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 04, 2017, 01:24:34 PM
The only way that interstate has a chance of happening is if it ends in Fayetteville. It would be much easier to get approved if it was sold as a way to link Fort Bragg to the Midwest via connections to I-77 (via I-40 & US-52/I-74), and I-73. Anytime the military is involved, support usually goes up tenfold, especially at the federal level. Eastern NC was very successful in getting their future/existing interstates because of that. I-42, I-87, and I-795 all have military base(s) along their corridors. I-587 is the only one that does not. Greenville's population and role as the economic and medical hub of eastern NC and the ease of upgrading an already freeway-grade US-264 made I-587 a shoe-in.

In addition to US-421, NC-87 would need upgraded as well as a bypass of Spring Lake along with upgrading the interchange with NC-295 (Future I-295).


Yeah I agree, if it is a Greensboro-Fayetteville corridor, it will get approved easily because of the military base near Fayetteville. 100 miles seem to be around where Fayetteville is from Greensboro. (technically it is 94 miles, but if it is to connect to I-95, it is probably another 6 miles or so via I-295)

Now, speaking of I-295/Murchison Rd interchange,  I am starting to wonder if the flyover ramps that was built from I-295 to Murchison Rd North, which is also NC-87 along with NC-210 and NC-24 is the start of a possible new interstate corridor?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 04, 2017, 01:36:21 PM
I-38? Yes it's more north-south, but so is parallel I-40 from Raleigh down, and we have way more even numbers to spare than odd. Maybe with all the other positional violations, it's time they broke from the directional pattern and just signed it north-south.

Ideally it could follow 87 and feed into NC 210/Murchison Rd to end at 295 in Fayetteville, but maybe they could manage to connect the All-American Fwy to the MLK Jr. Fwy to have it end at 95. Then the rest of the MLK Fwy could connect to Business 95 and we could have a legitimate I-238. :colorful:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 04, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
There certainly is a big "me too" effect going on here. Let's remember that these ideas are not coming from NCDOT but from local politicians and boosters. I expect the agency may be getting a little concerned about the big backlog of upgrade projects required by these new interstate designations. Of course the danger (for NCDOT) is that Congress can jump in and declare new interstate routes without listening to anyone except the politicians/boosters.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on August 05, 2017, 01:17:41 AM
Make the new interstate along the US 421 corridor also run about 5 miles west cosigned with I-85 so it can be numbered I-173.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on August 05, 2017, 04:34:46 AM
Charlotte should get into this action and ask the NCDOT to upgrade NC 24 from I-485 to Fayetteville. Go for a double whammy and upgrade NC 24 past Fayetteville to Jacksonville. Such a route would also cross US 1, which would directly connect the two largest metros in the state.

It's interesting how there hasn't been a new interstate in Charlotte since when I-77 was constructed. I guess the metro is more interested in upgrading its current infrastructure than creating new roads that won't be completed in several decades, with the exception of US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 05, 2017, 07:37:11 AM
Another upcoming project on I-95. This time in Johnston County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14191 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14191)

Quote
RALEIGH — Work will soon be underway to replace two aging bridges and repave a seven-mile section of I-95 in Johnston County. The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $53.1 million contract to Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh to smooth I-95 between south of Lizzie Mill Road and the Wilson County line and replace the bridges.

This section of road sees nearly 36,000 vehicles per day and number is expected to increase to almost 42,000 over the next two decades. In addition to paving, the contract includes grading and drainage work.

The bridges over I-95 at Lizzie Mill Road and Bizzell Grove Church Road will be replaced with longer and wider bridges to accommodate any future widening of I-95. The current bridges are 61 and 59 years old, respectively. Both are classified as functionally obsolete, meaning that they were built to standards no longer in use.

Most of the repaving will take place at night, but some daytime lane closures are expected. There will be periodic night-time closures of I-95 for the bridge construction and detours will be in place. NCDOT will notify the public ahead of these closures.

Work can begin Aug. 28 and is expected to be complete by September 2020. Additional vegetation work may continue until March 2021.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 05, 2017, 01:44:29 PM
Charlotte should get into this action and ask the NCDOT to upgrade NC 24 from I-485 to Fayetteville. Go for a double whammy and upgrade NC 24 past Fayetteville to Jacksonville. Such a route would also cross US 1, which would directly connect the two largest metros in the state.

It's interesting how there hasn't been a new interstate in Charlotte since when I-77 was constructed. I guess the metro is more interested in upgrading its current infrastructure than creating new roads that won't be completed in several decades, with the exception of US 74.

I think once the Ashboro bypass is complete, you may see the slow freewayization of the NC49 corridor commence.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 05, 2017, 02:12:05 PM
Charlotte should get into this action and ask the NCDOT to upgrade NC 24 from I-485 to Fayetteville. Go for a double whammy and upgrade NC 24 past Fayetteville to Jacksonville. Such a route would also cross US 1, which would directly connect the two largest metros in the state.

It's interesting how there hasn't been a new interstate in Charlotte since when I-77 was constructed. I guess the metro is more interested in upgrading its current infrastructure than creating new roads that won't be completed in several decades, with the exception of US 74.

With the construction activity going on along or parallel to US 74 both west (Shelby area) and east (Monroe bypass toll road) of Charlotte, within the next decade or so it wouldn't be surprising to see a decided push for an east-west Interstate corridor (I-26 to Rockingham) encompassing those routes by folks from the greater Charlotte region -- giving everyone an opportunity to guess what number would be selected (my money's on 36!). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on August 06, 2017, 09:36:49 AM
Charlotte should get into this action and ask the NCDOT to upgrade NC 24 from I-485 to Fayetteville. Go for a double whammy and upgrade NC 24 past Fayetteville to Jacksonville. Such a route would also cross US 1, which would directly connect the two largest metros in the state.

It's interesting how there hasn't been a new interstate in Charlotte since when I-77 was constructed. I guess the metro is more interested in upgrading its current infrastructure than creating new roads that won't be completed in several decades, with the exception of US 74.

With the construction activity going on along or parallel to US 74 both west (Shelby area) and east (Monroe bypass toll road) of Charlotte, within the next decade or so it wouldn't be surprising to see a decided push for an east-west Interstate corridor (I-26 to Rockingham) encompassing those routes by folks from the greater Charlotte region -- giving everyone an opportunity to guess what number would be selected (my money's on 36!).

Problem there is that 74 through Charlotte itself is never likely to be upgraded to interstate standards. Its current upgrade is to a pure expressway from Uptown to the Monroe Expressway and that's hard to see changing again to a freeway at any point in the future. City leaders fought tooth and nail for any upgrades to be purely expressway as part of their community planning packages. They blame the original expressway portion (which is built as 2.5 miles of freeway) as killing the community in the area and have been highly involved in future upgrades.

I've always thought we'll see an Interstate designation for 74 from 85 to 26, probably some x26 designation. Charlotte to Rockingham is certainly possible, but in that case I think it would either have to end at 485 or follow 485 to 77
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2017, 02:12:41 PM
Charlotte should get into this action and ask the NCDOT to upgrade NC 24 from I-485 to Fayetteville. Go for a double whammy and upgrade NC 24 past Fayetteville to Jacksonville. Such a route would also cross US 1, which would directly connect the two largest metros in the state.

It's interesting how there hasn't been a new interstate in Charlotte since when I-77 was constructed. I guess the metro is more interested in upgrading its current infrastructure than creating new roads that won't be completed in several decades, with the exception of US 74.

With the construction activity going on along or parallel to US 74 both west (Shelby area) and east (Monroe bypass toll road) of Charlotte, within the next decade or so it wouldn't be surprising to see a decided push for an east-west Interstate corridor (I-26 to Rockingham) encompassing those routes by folks from the greater Charlotte region -- giving everyone an opportunity to guess what number would be selected (my money's on 36!).

Problem there is that 74 through Charlotte itself is never likely to be upgraded to interstate standards. Its current upgrade is to a pure expressway from Uptown to the Monroe Expressway and that's hard to see changing again to a freeway at any point in the future. City leaders fought tooth and nail for any upgrades to be purely expressway as part of their community planning packages. They blame the original expressway portion (which is built as 2.5 miles of freeway) as killing the community in the area and have been highly involved in future upgrades.

I've always thought we'll see an Interstate designation for 74 from 85 to 26, probably some x26 designation. Charlotte to Rockingham is certainly possible, but in that case I think it would either have to end at 485 or follow 485 to 77

I always figured that any E-W corridor via greater Charlotte would simply multiplex over the south side of I-485 anyway; taking it through the central city would likely be an exercise in both political and logistic futility. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2017, 10:04:35 AM
Public meeting tonight regarding I-440's rebuild.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14209 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14209)

Quote
RALEIGH — The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold an open-house public meeting and a combined public hearing tomorrow, Tuesday, Aug. 8, regarding proposed improvements to I-440 in Wake County.

These suggested improvements — I-440 between just south of Walnut Street in Cary and north of Wade Avenue in Raleigh — are needed to improve traffic flow, access and efficiency along the roadway. Changes include widening the roadway from four to six lanes, replacing pavement and bridges and upgrading interchanges. More information on these improvements, including project maps, is available online at https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440improvements/.

The meeting and presentation will be held at the McKimmon Center, 1101 Gorman St. in Raleigh. Interested residents may attend the meeting any time between 4 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.  The public hearing begins at 7 p.m.

NCDOT representatives will be available to answer questions and listen to comments regarding the project.

For questions or additional project information, contact Diane Wilson, NCDOT Senior Public Involvement Officer, at 919-707-6073 or pdwilson1@ncdot.gov.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2017, 01:00:44 PM
Meredith College is having a tizzy over the amount of land NCDOT plans to take for the I-440 widening project.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165894987.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165894987.html)

Quote
The president of Meredith College says the N.C. Department of Transportation’s plans to widen the Beltline in West Raleigh will eat up valuable chunks of her campus and is asking DOT to go back to the drawing board.

Jo Allen will speak at a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 8, that is expected to draw others who will be impacted when DOT widens the Beltline from four to six lanes and reconfigures several interchanges between Wade Avenue and Walnut Street in Cary. The hearing at the McKimmon Conference and Training Center at 1101 Gorman St. in Raleigh will begin with an open house from 4:30 to 7 p.m., followed by a formal presentation at 7 p.m.

NCDOT expects to spend at least $400 million on a 3.5-mile stretch of Interstate 440 that dates back to 1960. It’s the only four-lane section of the Beltline, causing traffic bottlenecks that also result in a relatively high number of crashes, said Joey Hopkins, the DOT district engineer in charge of the project.

Hopkins acknowledged that the DOT’s current plans for the project would affect property owners and institutions that line the Beltline, as the state takes land to accommodate the wider highway and reconfigured interchanges. They include N.C. State University, the N.C. Museum of Art, the owners and residents of dozens of homes and apartments — and Meredith, where parking lots and athletic fields the college plans to use for future growth would largely be taken by DOT.

“Meredith College appreciates the need to improve I-440’s traffic flow,”  Allen said in a statement released Monday. “But plans put forth by the N.C. Department of Transportation are not reasonable as they could wipe out a significant portion of the western side of Meredith’s campus. Meredith’s students, faculty, staff and supporters call upon the N.C. Department of Transportation to come up with more equitable plans that pose fewer impacts on this historic campus.”

The challenge for DOT engineers is that the I-440 corridor is narrow, with buildings and property on both sides. Shifting the road away from Meredith’s campus would simply take more property on the other side, where the University Club already stands to lose all its tennis courts and its parking lot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 08, 2017, 01:35:00 PM
The officials in NC would be even further past ridiculous if they even think about taking such a proposal seriously. That dude really wants to squeeze a corridor in between I-40 & I-73/74? Damn they might as well keep it going and have US 421 west of the Triad become an interstate too, all the way to the Appalachian Tri-Cities smdh. Seriously though, they don't even complete much shorter urban loops and spurs but they steady dream up more long distance interstate corridors. When will I-73 and I-74 be completed? Really to me I-74 (as a different #) should've just followed US 74 to Charlotte to connect that city to Wilmington, at least it would've made some sort of sense. Logic doesn't seem to be these planners' strong suit

Planners?  We're NC -- we don't need no stinking planners!  We want a new Interstate, we get a new Interstate.  And thanks for mentioning a E-W corridor via Charlotte and US 74; we'll get around to that one soon enough!  BTW, have you met our new intern?  Some kid named Fritz!

Haha.  :-D :clap:

While we're at it, let's just extend I-87 southwest down to Rockingham and make US64 an interstate so that it bypasses Winston-Salem and Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 08, 2017, 03:14:44 PM
Meredith College is having a tizzy over the amount of land NCDOT plans to take for the I-440 widening project.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165894987.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165894987.html)

Quote
The president of Meredith College says the N.C. Department of Transportation’s plans to widen the Beltline in West Raleigh will eat up valuable chunks of her campus and is asking DOT to go back to the drawing board.

Jo Allen will speak at a public hearing on Tuesday, Aug. 8, that is expected to draw others who will be impacted when DOT widens the Beltline from four to six lanes and reconfigures several interchanges between Wade Avenue and Walnut Street in Cary. The hearing at the McKimmon Conference and Training Center at 1101 Gorman St. in Raleigh will begin with an open house from 4:30 to 7 p.m., followed by a formal presentation at 7 p.m.

NCDOT expects to spend at least $400 million on a 3.5-mile stretch of Interstate 440 that dates back to 1960. It’s the only four-lane section of the Beltline, causing traffic bottlenecks that also result in a relatively high number of crashes, said Joey Hopkins, the DOT district engineer in charge of the project.

Hopkins acknowledged that the DOT’s current plans for the project would affect property owners and institutions that line the Beltline, as the state takes land to accommodate the wider highway and reconfigured interchanges. They include N.C. State University, the N.C. Museum of Art, the owners and residents of dozens of homes and apartments — and Meredith, where parking lots and athletic fields the college plans to use for future growth would largely be taken by DOT.

“Meredith College appreciates the need to improve I-440’s traffic flow,”  Allen said in a statement released Monday. “But plans put forth by the N.C. Department of Transportation are not reasonable as they could wipe out a significant portion of the western side of Meredith’s campus. Meredith’s students, faculty, staff and supporters call upon the N.C. Department of Transportation to come up with more equitable plans that pose fewer impacts on this historic campus.”

The challenge for DOT engineers is that the I-440 corridor is narrow, with buildings and property on both sides. Shifting the road away from Meredith’s campus would simply take more property on the other side, where the University Club already stands to lose all its tennis courts and its parking lot.

Wow I'm not sure what Meredith's gripe is about.... It looks like there's ample room for the 6 laning without disrupting anything there unless NCDOT plans on some kind of super mega interchange with Wade Ave or something. Unless I'm missing something the only issue I really see is just to the south of Hillsborough St and around the Lake Cramer area. This stretch of beltline definitely needs widening, like 20 years ago
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 08, 2017, 04:36:58 PM
plain:  did you read the article or look at NCDOT's project website?  This project involves far more than just 6-laning the Beltline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on August 08, 2017, 09:55:15 PM
plain:  did you read the article or look at NCDOT's project website?  This project involves far more than just 6-laning the Beltline.

I noticed they have three different alternatives posted for how to redo I-440 at Wade Ave.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 09, 2017, 06:33:41 AM
plain:  did you read the article or look at NCDOT's project website?  This project involves far more than just 6-laning the Beltline.

What I saw a year ago was a plan for 6-laning with just a consideration for C/D lanes between Wade & Hillsborough, I had no idea they came up with all of these scenarios... admittedly I haven't kept up with the plans for this particular road because for some reason I thought they were going to try acquiring as less ROW as possible given all the important stuff there. After going over that new Environmental Assessment just now (the article itself really didn't say anything about it) I'm thinking NCDOT is a little more than ambitious with these plans. I won't be surprised if even the simplest option get watered down when it's all said and done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: michealbond on August 09, 2017, 08:25:12 AM

Quote
While we're at it, let's just extend I-87 southwest down to Rockingham and make US64 an interstate so that it bypasses Winston-Salem and Greensboro.

Hi all, new poster here. I moseyed on over from the city-data forums.

I know NC has been wanting an alternate highway from Raleigh to Charlotte. I would like the state to try to get I-87 to be this alternate highway.  They can run it through the US64-NC49 corridor or the US1-US501-NC27 corridor. Or they could even have it run US 64 to Asheboro, down I-74, then follow the NC 27 corridor in to 485. They could tell the feds that 87 could not only be a direct connection from Raleigh to Norfolk, but a more direct route between Charlotte and Norfolk.

I think it could become an easier, faster route between Charlotte & Raleigh.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 09, 2017, 01:00:14 PM

Quote
While we're at it, let's just extend I-87 southwest down to Rockingham and make US64 an interstate so that it bypasses Winston-Salem and Greensboro.

Hi all, new poster here. I moseyed on over from the city-data forums.

I know NC has been wanting an alternate highway from Raleigh to Charlotte. I would like the state to try to get I-87 to be this alternate highway.  They can run it through the US64-NC49 corridor or the US1-US501-NC27 corridor. Or they could even have it run US 64 to Asheboro, down I-74, then follow the NC 27 corridor in to 485. They could tell the feds that 87 could not only be a direct connection from Raleigh to Norfolk, but a more direct route between Charlotte and Norfolk.

I think it could become an easier, faster route between Charlotte & Raleigh.

I kind of said that tongue in cheek, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they do end up happening. I wouldn't put it past them.

I do wish they'd finish some of the other future interstates they have planned like 26, 42, 285, and 785 before they start building these new ones.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 09, 2017, 01:03:08 PM
Hi all, new poster here. I moseyed on over from the city-data forums.

I thought I recognized your name from the Greenville thread on C-D. Welcome to AARoads! :wave:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: michealbond on August 09, 2017, 02:03:07 PM
Quote

I kind of said that tongue in cheek, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they do end up happening. I wouldn't put it past them.

I do wish they'd finish some of the other future interstates they have planned like 26, 42, 285, and 785 before they start building these new ones.

Yea i understand you weren't serious. But NC really has been studying an alternate route for years. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us64phase1/)I'm not sure if you live in NC or near it. The 40/85 corridor can get very congested. With NC getting all these new interstates, they may have some success with the feds trying to keep them going to other parts of the state. They could try to do the same with I-42 and market it as an easier way to get people from Charlotte to the Crystal Coast. 3 interstates connecting Charlotte to Raleigh would be cool, even if it would be overkill. But if the government is just handing out interstates left & right, it'd be a good idea to at least try to get as much as you can from it. This state is only going to get bigger in population, trying to make it easier to travel throughout it would be ideal.


LM117, I hadn't come over here before but I saw a few posts on CD about this forum so I came to check it out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 09, 2017, 03:21:40 PM
Quote

I kind of said that tongue in cheek, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they do end up happening. I wouldn't put it past them.

I do wish they'd finish some of the other future interstates they have planned like 26, 42, 285, and 785 before they start building these new ones.

Yea i understand you weren't serious. But NC really has been studying an alternate route for years. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us64phase1/)I'm not sure if you live in NC or near it. The 40/85 corridor can get very congested. With NC getting all these new interstates, they may have some success with the feds trying to keep them going to other parts of the state. They could try to do the same with I-42 and market it as an easier way to get people from Charlotte to the Crystal Coast. 3 interstates connecting Charlotte to Raleigh would be cool, even if it would be overkill. But if the government is just handing out interstates left & right, it'd be a good idea to at least try to get as much as you can from it. This state is only going to get bigger in population, trying to make it easier to travel throughout it would be ideal.


LM117, I hadn't come over here before but I saw a few posts on CD about this forum so I came to check it out.
I forgot to say earlier. Welcome to the forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 09, 2017, 07:52:43 PM
In addition to Meredith College, the NC State University Club isn't happy about the I-440 project, either.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article166199207.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article166199207.html)

Quote
Members of the N.C. State University Club told N.C. Department of Transportation officials Tuesday night that plans to widen the Beltline in West Raleigh threaten the existence of their institution, which was founded as a club for faculty in the early 1960s.

Proposals to reconfigure the Interstate 440 interchanges at Wade Avenue and Hillsborough Street would take 19 acres from the club, including all of its tennis courts, most of its parking lot, part of its par-3 golf course and a new tennis shop and snack bar next to the pool.

“The pool will be less than a Frisbee throw from the traffic,”  said Jim Crisp, a history professor. Crisp said the loss of those facilities would be “crippling if not fatal.”

Crisp was one of more than two dozen club members who spoke Tuesday night at a hearing on the project, which has also drawn concern from people at Meredith College and some West Raleigh residents. They talked about the countless kids who have learned to swim at the club, its use for wedding receptions and other events and the community that has grown up around it over the years.

No one who spoke disputed the need to widen I-440 from four to six lanes between Wade Avenue in Raleigh and Walnut Street in Cary. This 4-mile stretch dates back to 1960, when there was far less traffic and highway design standards tolerated shorter entrance and exit ramps and the crisscrossing of entering and exiting traffic.

As many as 94,000 vehicles a day now squeeze through this narrow section, often having to slow down suddenly, particularly around the Western Boulevard interchange. The result is an accident rate that is three times the statewide average for urban interstates, says Joey Hopkins, the division engineer in charge of the project.

Hopkins said before the hearing that he thinks DOT engineers can rework the plans to reduce, though not eliminate, the impacts on the University Club and other property owners along the Beltline, including Meredith College.

“What we try to do at this stage is show what’s the worst impacts that can be,”  he said.

The two-hour hearing drew more than 300 people to the McKimmon Center at N.C. State University. Earlier in the afternoon, DOT invited people to study the plans and ask questions in an adjoining room, and hundreds filtered through, looking at maps hung on walls and spread over tables to see how the project would affect their home or neighborhood.

“That would come right in the front door there,”  said Faye Childers, pointing to where the DOT’s right-of-way would cross a rental house she and her husband own on the corner of Jones Franklin Road and Barringer Drive. Childers, 82, said that her mother and father built the house in 1957, and that she and her husband, Joe, built the one where they live next door on Barringer in 1977.

Joe Childers, 83, joked about whether he should plant grass or leave it for DOT to worry about. “You can’t do anything about it,”  he said of the prospect of losing property for the project.

But others were less sanguine. After he found his home on one of the maps, Phil King learned that there were no plans to build a noise wall between it and the expanded highway. A DOT representative told him that because his house at the end of Ravenwood Drive was one of only two along that stretch of road, it wasn’t considered cost-effective to build a wall.

“If you’re not going to build a wall, then you’re going to buy the house,”  said King, 68. “Because we’ve got noise like crazy now.”

The questions and worries differed from map to map. How many houses will be lost on Aukland Street? How long will the Melbourne Road and Athens Drive bridges over the Beltline have to be closed? Does that exit ramp from the Beltline to Hillsborough have to take up so much land?

Not everyone was unhappy with what they saw. Deborah Williams was pleased to see that none of the plans would encroach on Oak Grove Cemetery, which was established by freed slaves in the Method community and is where her grandparents and great-grandparents are buried.

“That’s been up there since the Civil War days,”  said Williams, 62.

The most complicated parts of the project are the new interchanges at Wade Avenue and Hillsborough Street. DOT presented three options Tuesday, all of which would take 19 acres from the University Club and at least 13.5 acres from Meredith College across the highway.

Meredith president Jo Allen said not only would DOT take land the college plans to use for expansion, but it would put highway bridges, berms and light poles all along the western edge of the campus.

“This project will … forever change the character of our campus,”  Allen said.

But it was the University Club members whose voices were heard most often Tuesday, imploring DOT officials to come up with alternatives that take up less space. Beth Weaver, 62, told Hopkins that she’d been a club member since she was 10 and had her wedding reception and raised her kids there.

“We know you’re trying to do your job,”  Weaver said. “For us it’s personal. And it’s emotional.”

It’s not clear whether or how the state would compensate the club, which is now open to alumni as well as faculty and staff. The state already owns the land on which the club sits; the property is leased by the university’s foundation, which in turn leases it to the club.

DOT will accept written comments on the Beltline project until Aug. 22 at publicinput.com/1851/. Information about the project, including maps showing various configurations for the road and interchanges, can be found at www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440improvements/.

DOT doesn’t expect to award a contract for the final designs and construction until next summer. Even then, Hopkins said, motorists may not notice the work getting under way until early 2019.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on August 09, 2017, 09:38:24 PM
Both Meredith and the University Club have ample reason to be upset.

Now, I'm OK with some property takings on either or both sides of the highway. A house here or a business there is frankly the cost of progress - you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and all that. But the proposed corridor between Meredith and the University Club is over 800' wide. This is an enormous land grab that they're proposing here, and it really, really hurts. Just because there is nothing currently built on much of that land, doesn't mean it's OK to squander it on gratuitous grassy highway right-of-way. Open land in central Raleigh is a precious resource, and the institutions of Meredith and the University Club are really important parts of what make Raleigh a great place to live.

So let's take a step back. Why is the corridor so wide? If you look at it, it's mostly the braided ramps. After some discussion, an engineer at the meeting told me that in all the proposed designs, the braided ramps cross each other with as sharp of an angle as is possible with conventional skewed bridges, and those angles combined with the minimum curve radius drive the width. But this is a problem that urban highway designers figured out how to solve ages ago. The solution is called a "straddle bent." Although commonplace elsewhere, I'm not aware of a single highway viaduct with straddle bents in the entire state of NC. (There may be a few, but if so, they're not common, and there certainly aren't any in the Triangle.) It's as if NCDOT is stuck in a rural mindset - the equity formula had them only building rural freeways for so long, while neglecting the urban areas, that they haven't really learned how to build true urban freeways. FWIW, The only straddle bents I have seen in NC belong to the Blue Line light rail in Charlotte, where it crosses over the Norfolk Southern freight line, near Tyvola in the south and near Sugar Creek in the northeast. And the NCDOT highway department had nothing to do with that project.

Travel just a short ways north up to Chesapeake, Virginia, and you'll find a perfect example: on I-64 they have a place where they took an 8-lane highway with 2-lane braided ramps on either side and used straddle bent viaducts to stuff it all into a corridor less than 350' wide: https://goo.gl/maps/P9dUe87LT5k

NCDOT had some frankly unconvincing words about how "it's in the contractor's best interest to minimize the footprint." But I doubt a contractor - particularly a contractor based in NC who is used to dealing with NCDOT - would volunteer such a solution without at least some poking and prodding. I think DOT needs to go back to the drawing board and think outside the box of what has been built before in NC, and have another go at minimizing the footprint. Maybe call up their counterparts at VDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on August 10, 2017, 11:40:51 AM
I'd also question how necessary the Hillsborough interchange is in this case.  You could remove the interchange to simplify the Wade Ave interchange.  Then you would rely on the Western Blvd, Wade Ave, and Blue Ridge Rd at Wade for local traffic to use instead.  The Blue Ridge interchange could be improved to a SPUI or go further and make it a diverging diamond.  Which that doesn't have to happen immediately.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 10, 2017, 03:43:17 PM
It's as if NCDOT is stuck in a rural mindset - the equity formula had them only building rural freeways for so long, while neglecting the urban areas, that they haven't really learned how to build true urban freeways.

NCDOT has built lots of fine highways, but like you say very few true urban freeways.  A couple miles of I-277 in Charlotte, maybe a mile of NC-147 in Durham.  Anywhere else? 

I think DOT needs to go back to the drawing board and think outside the box of what has been built before in NC, and have another go at minimizing the footprint. Maybe call up their counterparts at VDOT.

One of the things that has always interested me about VDOT and other highway agencies there (RMA and CBBTD), outside the box engineering solutions.

Just a few --
-- The bridge-tunnel concept, built three of them including the first in the world (HRBT).  Also CBBT and MMMBT.
-- VA-195 connection to I-95, double decked elevated freeway built to connect directly to pre-existing I-95 James River bridge.
-- I-95 Shirley Highway reconstruction 1965-1975, one the first such projects to rebuild and expand an older urban freeway, and the first exclusive busway on a freeway.
-- I-95 and I-395 reversible roadway for HOV, extended twice.
-- I-66 built with Metrorail line in median.
-- I-195 Beltline Expressway built around pre-existing depressed mainline railroad.  The conceptual design itself as well as the construction engineering required to construct it.  Designed by RMA and built by VDOT.
-- I-77 thru Fancy Gap, 18 million cubic yards of excavation thru mountainous terrain crossing the Blue Ridge.
-- I-295 Varina-Enon Bridge, one of the earliest cable stayed bridges in the U.S.
-- I-495 HOT lanes project.  The conceptual design itself as well as the construction engineering required to construct it.
-- I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange which includes an HOV only interchange between the two freeways.
-- I-95/I-495 Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project (shared with MDOT SHA).

And at least 10 others that  I could add if I wanted to type them out.

Two of those projects won the OCEA award, those being the CBBT and the WWB.
(American Society of Civil Engineers annually recognizes an exemplary civil engineering project as the Outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on August 10, 2017, 05:23:01 PM


NCDOT has built lots of fine highways, but like you say very few true urban freeways.  A couple miles of I-277 in Charlotte, maybe a mile of NC-147 in Durham.  Anywhere else? 

A short stretch of I-240 in downtown Asheville built in the 1960s and upgraded a bit around 1980, and the rather ancient Green 40 in Winston-Salem (which is supposed to get rebuilt soon, I think.) come to mind.

None of the old ones were built recently enough for there to be much in the way of institutional memory left at all. The rural-focused equity formula held sway for about 25 or 30 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 10, 2017, 05:34:38 PM
I thought the initial alternatives for I-440 were a bit..... extravagant for the interchanges that were there. I guess NCDOT engineers just assume that because the land next to the highway is open, that they can build on it. I bet folks in the northeastern states wish they had half the open land that's alongside I-440 there to work with on projects around here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on August 10, 2017, 06:04:59 PM
I'd also question how necessary the Hillsborough interchange is in this case.  You could remove the interchange to simplify the Wade Ave interchange.  Then you would rely on the Western Blvd, Wade Ave, and Blue Ridge Rd at Wade for local traffic to use instead.  The Blue Ridge interchange could be improved to a SPUI or go further and make it a diverging diamond.  Which that doesn't have to happen immediately.
Eliminating the Hillsborough interchange wouldn't come close to working with the way that the Hillsborough/Blue Ridge/Beryl intersection is right now with the railroad grade crossing. The signal timing and cycles are super conservative to make it nearly impossible for a driver to become entrapped when a train is coming and the gates are lowering. Maybe if they build the railroad grade separation that would help. Word at the meeting was that NCDOT is considering doing just that, combining the beltline project with u-4437, the RR grade separation on Blue Ridge, into a single contract.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 11, 2017, 12:09:31 PM
NCDOT accelerating US 17 Hampstead Bypass project by 5 years:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14224 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14224)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 11, 2017, 06:00:11 PM
I thought the initial alternatives for I-440 were a bit..... extravagant for the interchanges that were there. I guess NCDOT engineers just assume that because the land next to the highway is open, that they can build on it. I bet folks in the northeastern states wish they had half the open land that's alongside I-440 there to work with on projects around here.
NCDOT is in a lot of trouble with both NCSU and Meredith, which means a lot of important people in Raleigh. Expect some significant changes to the plans.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2017, 09:11:49 AM
I'd also question how necessary the Hillsborough interchange is in this case.  You could remove the interchange to simplify the Wade Ave interchange.  Then you would rely on the Western Blvd, Wade Ave, and Blue Ridge Rd at Wade for local traffic to use instead.  The Blue Ridge interchange could be improved to a SPUI or go further and make it a diverging diamond.  Which that doesn't have to happen immediately.

Meredith would probably be even less happy with losing the Hillsborough interchange. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I'd be surprised if NCDOT can come up with anything that would satisfy NCSU and Meredith short of saying "to hell with it" and leaving I-440 as it is. There's very little room to work with on I-440 and leaving I-440 as it is isn't acceptable. Something's gotta give.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 17, 2017, 04:20:17 AM
Good news for people who can't read stop signs in Holly Springs. :pan:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14240 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14240)

Quote
RALEIGH - The N.C. Department of Transportation has approved a traffic light at the new intersection of South Main Street, Ralph Stephens Road and Piney Grove Wilbon Road.

The town and NCDOT are fast-tracking installation, slashing months off the usual time required by starting with wooden poles instead of custom-designed metal ones.

The extension of South Main Street to a realigned Piney Grove Wilbon Road opened in early August, providing a new route through southwestern Holly Springs and alleviating traffic congestion on Avent Ferry Road. However, several crashes have occurred at the new intersection. Police said drivers have failed to stop for stop signs on Ralph Stephens Road despite numerous warning devices.

Town officials received approval of the traffic light Tuesday morning, the day after submitting traffic count and accident data required to meet state criteria for a traffic light. To save time further, the town submitted engineering plans while DOT reviewed the town’s request for a traffic light.

Town officials believe timesaving measures could have a traffic light up and running in less than two months instead of the usual six to nine months.

Town Manager Chuck Simmons said he was pleased with DOT’s approval of the light and thanked state transportation officials helping to expedite installation.

“Safety is our overriding concern,”  he said.

“We are glad the department and the town could work quickly together to come up with a solution to improve the safety for drivers and their passengers at that intersection,”  said NCDOT Division Engineer Joey Hopkins.

Crashes occurred at the intersection even after the addition of message boards, rumble strips, additional stop signs, and other measures to attract drivers’ attention.

During planning and design for Main Street extension, the town asked for a traffic light for the intersection of Main Street, Piney Grove Wilbon Road, and Ralph Stephens Road. But traffic forecasts completed during design did not show that the roadway met federal criteria for a traffic light. Therefore, the town and DOT agreed to a new analysis after opening, using actual traffic counts.

The town built the Main Street extension and intersection in partnership with NCDOT. The roadway will be part of the state’s transportation system. That is why DOT has final say over road design and the traffic control plan. DOT provided most of the funding for the roadway through federal grants.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: gcjdavid on August 19, 2017, 09:25:45 PM
https://www.google.com.sg/maps/@34.9692651,-79.737839,13.75z\

I'm new to AARoads and I would like to ask a question. Based on the link above, why are there residential roads marked with four-figure state highway designations in Rockingham, NC?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on August 20, 2017, 07:19:23 AM
Those aren't highway designations.  We use SR (State Road) for these, or at least used to.  It might be equivalent to Virginia's secondary route (the circle shield).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 20, 2017, 08:15:39 AM
Those aren't highway designations.  We use SR (State Road) for these, or at least used to.  It might be equivalent to Virginia's secondary route (the circle shield).

SR stands for "Secondary Road" and they are used for identification purposes by NCDOT (administrative function), they reset in each county.  All non-primary roads will have them if they are maintained by NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on August 20, 2017, 10:15:14 AM
Yes, the above explanations are correct. In NC, at many intersections you may notice little black plaques attached to the usual green road name markers. Those black markers indicate the state road number. Always found that a bit amusing - even a diehard road geek like me has no idea what any of the secondary numbers around my house are, so I don't know to whose benefit these extra markers are.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on August 20, 2017, 04:06:55 PM
I only know of two in the whole state.  SR 1360 in Rockingham County, heading into Virginia (my dad and I used to take it off US 220 to get to the Mayo River to do a little canoeing) and SR 1001 in Jackson County, heading away from the WCU campus up the mountain and back down to Franklin (we had family friends building a log cabin just short of the huge switchback on the road).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2017, 04:26:54 PM
Yes, the above explanations are correct. In NC, at many intersections you may notice little black plaques attached to the usual green road name markers. Those black markers indicate the state road number. Always found that a bit amusing - even a diehard road geek like me has no idea what any of the secondary numbers around my house are, so I don't know to whose benefit these extra markers are.

Since NCDOT maintains these secondary roads as well, they're probably simply road ID markers for (a) reference purposes regarding maintenance records, and (b) indications to maintenance crews for navigation purposes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 21, 2017, 06:22:30 PM
In suburban areas, where the intersections are marked with ordinary green street signs, the SR number is sometimes added in the lower left corner. Here's an example on Herndon Road in southern Durham County:
https://goo.gl/maps/XEWWVsmYEt12
Obviously, these notations are too small to read from among vehicle.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 21, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
In suburban areas, where the intersections are marked with ordinary green street signs, the SR number is sometimes added in the lower left corner. Here's an example on Herndon Road in southern Durham County:
https://goo.gl/maps/XEWWVsmYEt12
Obviously, these notations are too small to read from among vehicle.
Make that a moving vehicle!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 23, 2017, 10:13:03 PM
Sometimes secondary routes do get a bit more publicity, as Ten Ten Rd. (yes its SR-1010) in Wake County shows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 24, 2017, 08:26:23 PM
From Southeast Roads on Facebook - an unknown NC route designation is coming to Miltary Cutoff Road Extension in Wilmington.

Also out now: the signage plans for the Military Cutoff extension in Wilmington: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/10-17-17/NEW%20HANOVER%20U-4751%20C203980/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

Of note: the extension itself will have an unknown NC designation (the plans only have a blank NC shield listed), and NC 140 is going to be moved to the stretch of freeway running east from I-40 exit 416 to US 17 once the remainder of I-140 opens between US 421 and US 74/76.

Eventually, and this is likely the reason US 17 was moved back to run through Wilmington along Military Cutoff and Oleander, it will be a straight shot off the Hampstead bypass onto Military Cutoff with no turns needed to follow US 17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 24, 2017, 10:50:29 PM
NC 140 is going to be moved to the stretch of freeway running east from I-40 exit 416 to US 17 once the remainder of I-140 opens between US 421 and US 74/76.

I suspect that's temporary until NCDOT applies to AASHTO and FHWA for that section to become I-140. Seems odd to keep NC-140 permanent, otherwise. :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 24, 2017, 11:01:44 PM
Also out now: the signage plans for the Military Cutoff extension in Wilmington: https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/10-17-17/NEW%20HANOVER%20U-4751%20C203980/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

Link doesn't work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 05, 2017, 08:54:57 PM
Are changes coming to how the NC Turnpike Authority collects tolls? 

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/are-changes-coming-to-triangle.html

Follow up on this:
. Well the news is that the ez pass compatible transponders have been reduced to $7.40.  The TXTag compatible transponder  (sticker) is now free.

https://www.myncquickpass.com/en/home/index.shtmlqq
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 05, 2017, 10:42:54 PM
The hard case transponders appear to have official E-ZPass branding now. Wonder what spurred that change?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on September 06, 2017, 05:35:54 PM
Your post made me realize that NC Quick Pass will become interoperable with TxTag in early 2018. Texas already has an agreement in place with Oklahoma and looks like they may be  even getting South Carolina in 2018. NC has been the most aggressive state in pursuing interoperability so hopefully we get OK and SO soon too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on September 06, 2017, 11:09:50 PM
South Carolina's toll roads use Mark IV transponders like E-ZPass does. Its surprising that it isn't already inter operable with E-ZPass already.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2017, 02:27:02 PM
The latest reactions on the I-440 project.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171705617.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article171705617.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 07, 2017, 07:43:26 PM
Swain County gets $4 million in partial fulfillment of Fontana settlement

https://mountainx.com/blogwire/swain-gets-4-million-in-partial-fulfillment-of-fontana-settlement/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on September 08, 2017, 06:39:53 PM
Swain County gets $4 million in partial fulfillment of Fontana settlement

https://mountainx.com/blogwire/swain-gets-4-million-in-partial-fulfillment-of-fontana-settlement/

Well, that is something... they should build a road.   :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 09, 2017, 04:52:13 PM
Your post made me realize that NC Quick Pass will become interoperable with TxTag in early 2018. Texas already has an agreement in place with Oklahoma and looks like they may be  even getting South Carolina in 2018. NC has been the most aggressive state in pursuing interoperability so hopefully we get OK and SO soon too.

We're going to get the free Florida and soon to be Texas compatible sticker.  With it being free - it's worth doing and we typically go to Florida every other year and now that the boys are starting to get older, we want to get back to Texas again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on September 14, 2017, 12:36:04 AM
Update on I-140 project: https://www.wwaytv3.com/2017/09/13/ncdot-gives-update-on-wilmington-bypass-i-140-project/

According to the article, it's scheduled to open in December 2017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 14, 2017, 04:23:15 PM
I assume the North Carolina 140 segment will be resigned Interstate 140 at that time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 14, 2017, 05:46:19 PM
I assume the North Carolina 140 segment will be resigned Interstate 140 at that time.
It's a safe bet. That section has already been approved by AASHTO & FHWA, I think.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 23, 2017, 07:34:38 AM
The completion date for the Greenville Southwest Bypass (NC-11) has been pushed back to June 2020.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/09/23/County-planners-looking-to-future-of-Southwest-Bypass.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2017/09/23/County-planners-looking-to-future-of-Southwest-Bypass.html)

Quote
Pitt County officials working this week on a land-use plan to guide development along the U.S. 264 Southwest Bypass corridor learned that the state has pushed back the project’s estimated completion date by a year.

Senior Planner Eric Gooby said he discovered the new date when checking the state Department of Transportation website. He shared the news with the Pitt County Planning Board on Wednesday during a meeting on a corridor land use plan for property along the 12.6-mile highway which extends from U.S. 264 Bypass at Statonsburg Road to N.C. 11 two miles south of Ayden.

Officials announced the project would be complete in June of 2019 when a ceremonial groundbreaking was held in November. A check of the project website in early spring still showed the completion date was in 2019.

Gooby said construction started September 2016 and “the newest expected completion date is mid-2020, June 2020. The original (completion date) was mid-2019 but it has been pushed back several months.”

Brian Rick, communications officer for NCDOT Divisions II and III, confirmed the change in a phone interview on Thursday. He said additional time is needed because a portion of the project was redesigned to address local concerns about the alignment of Davenport Farm Road.

Davenport Farm Road is being realigned so it intersects with U.S. 13/Dickinson Avenue Extension across from Bell Arthur Road, Rick said.

“This alignment takes Davenport Farm Road over the new bypass so a bridge had to be built,”  Rick said. The changes were made before the final design plans were completed, he said.

Along with the new plans for Davenport Farm Road, 10 days also were added because of problems related to Hurricane Matthew, Rick said.

Rick said the public was informed about the changes when the department updated the information on its website. He did not say when the website was update or if additional efforts were made to update stakeholders on the progress.

The land-use plan is a cooperative effort between Pitt County, Greenville, Ayden, Winterville, the Greenville Urban Area MPO and state transportation department, Gooby said during his presentation to the board.

“Because of the number of interchanges being proposed (along the corridor) we anticipate there is going to be growth around those interchanges,”  Gooby said. “It’s to help manage and guide the development that occurs along that corridor, especially those interchanges.”

The five interchanges will be located at Statonsburg Road, US 13/Dickinson Avenue, Forlines Road, N.C. 102 and N.C. 11 South.

The plan will focus mainly on development along the interchanges at U.S. 13/Dickinson Avenue and Forlines Road; a 17-square-mile area along 7.5 miles of the bypass.

Gooby said work on the plan will begin in October and should be completed in 10-12 months.

Earlier this year, the county planning department sought out a consultant to work on the project. Three firms applied, and the planning department selected Stewart Inc., an engineering firm with offices in Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte.

A steering committee is being created to guide the firm’s work, Gooby said.

The committee will be divided into two groups, a technical or staff group consisting of employees of the county, the three municipalities and NCDOT. The staff group will look at details of the document, Gooby said. This group is expected to hold six meetings during the process, Gooby said.

The second body is a study oversight group which will consist of planning board members from the county and the three municipalities along with representatives from other agencies, he said. This group will hold three to four meetings.

Gooby asked the planning board to select a member to serve with the oversight group. The unanimous choice, at the recommendation of board chairman Johnny Pinner, were Faye Barefoot and Ricky Hines.

The project’s next step will be a pre-planning process along with an inventory of the land, existing conditions along the corridor. This work will take place between October and December. January through March will be the plan development phase.

The draft and final plan should be completed and presented to the Pitt County Board of Commissioners in late spring-summer for adoption.

Meetings for the community to review and comment on the project are tentatively scheduled for February and June, Gooby said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 29, 2017, 04:54:13 AM
A lawsuit has been filed against the city of Greenville and the Pitt County Board of Education over the soon-to-be activated red light cameras.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/Greenville-school-board-sued-over-upcoming-red-light-camera-448536223.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Greenville-school-board-sued-over-upcoming-red-light-camera-448536223.html)

Quote
A Greenville man wants to put the brakes on the city's plan to install red light cameras at five intersections.

William Kozel filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the city and the Pitt County Board of Education, claiming the program is unconstitutional.

The city plans to start issuing warning tickets to drivers on October 15th. The intersections are Charles Boulevard and 14th Street. Charles Boulevard and Fire Tower Road, Arlington Boulevard and Fire Tower Road, Arlington Boulevard and Greenville Boulevard, and Arlington Boulevard and South Memorial Drive.

Lawyers for Kozel claim that since 90% of gross proceeds of all "civil penalties, forfeitures and fines" must go to local school boards, the Greenville red light program is set up so that the schools would not get their mandatory share.

Lawyer Paul Stam of Apex also claims while justification for the program is that it promotes traffic safety by reducing crashes, the State Constitution prohibits lawmakers from passing local acts "relating to health".

Another claim is that yellow lights at the intersection are too short and that a majority of people getting the tickets will actually be innocent.

Stam is asking a judge for preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking the red light camera program in Greenville.

The city isn't commenting on the lawsuit yet because they haven't been served with the actual paperwork.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 03, 2017, 12:51:23 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to a stretch of US-301 in Wilson. Work to begin after March 15 of next year.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14422 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14422)

Quote
Work on improving safety and pedestrian access on a venerable section of U.S. 301 in Wilson County will start next spring.

The facelift to Ward Boulevard (U.S. 301) between Black Creek Road South and Lipscomb Road East is a jointly funded effort by the N.C. Department of Transportation and the City of Wilson. The project will add a sidewalk on one side and a 10-foot multi-use path on the other along the 1.35-mile segment of the boulevard. Additionally, the outside lanes will be widened to accommodate bicyclists.

The enhancements also will include new crosswalks with pedestrian signals at key intersections, as well as the extension or addition of turn lanes to improve traffic flow and safety. The small strip of grass that now divides the roadway will be raised with new concrete curbs and gutters, and the road’s storm-drainage system will be upgraded.

Ward Boulevard is mostly residential and has worn paths on either side where people walk.

“U.S. 301 has been a major thoroughfare in Wilson for decades,”  Wilson Mayor Bruce Rose said. “With the upgrades planned, 301 will be safer and more accessible for walking, biking and driving.”

NCDOT recently has awarded a $13.6 million contract to S.T. Wooten Corp. of Wilson, which can begin work after March 15. Some additional utility lines must be relocated before work can begin. The project is scheduled to be completed in early 2020.

Additionally, the project will improve three of Ward Boulevard’s intersecting streets by adding sidewalks totaling more than a mile along portions of Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, Lipscomb Road East and Herring Avenue.

In 2015, the City of Wilson won a $10 million grant from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program to improve the corridor, which once was part of the old Interstate 95. The federal pot of money is highly competitive.

The city then added $2 million of its coffers toward engineering, design and right-of-way costs, and the state Board of Transportation last year chipped in $6.5 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 05, 2017, 02:52:39 PM
Update on the East End Connector in Durham.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14442 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14442)

Quote
Work on the East End Connector project will require the long-term closure of East End Avenue at U.S. 70, starting Tuesday night, Oct. 10. The closure is scheduled to remain in place until the fall of 2019 as a new road alignment goes into place that will tie into a roundabout that is part of the project.

Following the closure, repairs to Rowena Avenue, which intersects with East End Avenue and has been used by contractor trucks, will begin. The closure will help alleviate that construction traffic, and will expedite the resurfacing of Rowena Avenue, which is expected in spring 2018.

During the closure, traffic will be detoured onto Angier Avenue and Pleasant Drive to link East End Avenue and U.S. 70.

The East End Connector is a 3.9-mile interstate that will link U.S. 70 to the Durham Freeway, with U.S. 70 being upgraded to a freeway between Pleasant Drive and N.C. 98/Holloway Street.

It will create a multi-lane connection between I-85, the Durham Freeway and I-40 on the east side of Durham. It is expected to help alleviate congestion on the Durham Freeway through downtown Durham, and divert traffic off local roads such as U.S. 15/501, as well as Roxboro, Mangum, Gregson and Duke Streets.

Scheduled to be completed in 2019, the new highway is expected to add the Interstate 885 route designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 11, 2017, 08:24:22 AM
There will be a public hearing next Monday night in Morganton to discuss improvements to I-40, exit 103 for US 64.  I would call this as currently the worst traffic mess in the area.  The East half of the bridge over 40 is original from the late 1950's.  A large amount of the traffic approaching the interchange want to go left.  Way more capacity is needed for US 64 WB going left to 40 EB due to the nearby community college and the huge shipping facility on  Fleming Dr.  I could almost see a diverging down and or SPUI needed here.  They are contemplating business demolition and access control on 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 11, 2017, 02:02:22 PM
There will be a public hearing next Monday night in Morganton to discuss improvements to I-40, exit 103 for US 64.  I would call this as currently the worst traffic mess in the area.  The East half of the bridge over 40 is original from the late 1950's.  A large amount of the traffic approaching the interchange want to go left.  Way more capacity is needed for US 64 WB going left to 40 EB due to the nearby community college and the huge shipping facility on  Fleming Dr.  I could almost see a diverging down and or SPUI needed here.  They are contemplating business demolition and access control on 64.


About time! I remembered I used to live in Morganton for 4 years and the traffic in that area was the worst! I wonder what took them so long to get around it...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 11, 2017, 03:48:33 PM
When did you leave Morganton?  I ask to see if you knew about the huge retail complex that opened on the south side of Fleming just west of Burkemont.  That and the growth of Western Piedmont CC are what's killing this interchange most of the day.

I saw the study limits for US 64, Burkemont Ave., and I wish they do could extend the study area a half mile each direction, that  would cover the whole corroded area in need of fixing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 11, 2017, 05:28:57 PM
When did you leave Morganton?  I ask to see if you knew about the huge retail complex that opened on the south side of Fleming just west of Burkemont.  That and the growth of Western Piedmont CC are what's killing this interchange most of the day.

I saw the study limits for US 64, Burkemont Ave., and I wish they do could extend the study area a half mile each direction, that  would cover the whole corroded area in need of fixing.

I left Morganton in 2001. I lived there from 1997-2001 to attend a Deaf school there (high school). I haven't been there since then, but I drove past the interchange a couple of times in the past, heading to and from Asheville.

Do you have access to the study limits for US 64 in that area? I just wanted to see it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 11, 2017, 05:42:20 PM
Walker Road to Hopewell Road,  I advocate going from Salem to Fleming.  The intersection of Burkemont and Fleming is huge now and fails at peak times.  Also, check out Street views of the Enola and Sterling Street interchanges, NCDot redid them in the last 2 years, did a good lob.

The next 5 years could be big here:  making US 321 a super street from US 70 to Lenoir.  Widening I-40 from US 321 to I-77, with the section from US321 to exit 128 maybe being 8 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 11, 2017, 05:43:30 PM
The area is growing with low unemployment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on October 11, 2017, 06:00:05 PM
I was through there a few months ago; it really did blow up!  There's a new shopping center on Fleming where what I think was a furniture plant (Henredon maybe).  Amazing how much the Unifour is growing, I thought it was all but dead when I moved away from Lenoir in 2011.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 11, 2017, 08:00:19 PM
I moved from San Diego to the South Mountains Park area about 16 months ago.  12 year old premanufactured fixer on 5 acres for $45k, it took me 4 days to land a job in management, all me interviews asked me how much OT could I work.

I wish I could get some one to realign the NC18/Sugarloaf Rd/George Hildebrand Rd intersection and put a signal in.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 14, 2017, 10:16:53 PM
You may have never heard of Wilmington's Harry Forden Bridge (North 6th Street), but chances are you have seen it on television or in the movies quiet a number of times.

The 1911 Pratt Truss Bridge has been the backdrop to TV shows like One Tree Hill, Revolution, and Under the Dome.  It also has its own storied history.

http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2017/10/wilmingtons-henry-forden-bridge-aka-one.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 19, 2017, 12:46:53 PM
There will be a public hearing next Monday night in Morganton to discuss improvements to I-40, exit 103 for US 64.  I would call this as currently the worst traffic mess in the area.  The East half of the bridge over 40 is original from the late 1950's.  A large amount of the traffic approaching the interchange want to go left.  Way more capacity is needed for US 64 WB going left to 40 EB due to the nearby community college and the huge shipping facility on  Fleming Dr.  I could almost see a diverging down and or SPUI needed here.  They are contemplating business demolition and access control on 64.

I could not make the meeting but the images are available on line.  It will be an SPUI.  A new 8 Lane bridge will be built immediately West of the existing 1957 bridge.  All Lefts will be 2 lanes except 40w to 64 w, which will be a triple left.  The cost will be $45m, of which $18m is ROW.  It looks like everything on the west side of Burkemont from the he signal at Lowe's to just short of the Cook Out is being razed, even a small national chain hotel.  There will be auxillary clanes added to 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  The 64 overpass will allow an 8 Lane 40 underneath.  They had 2006 ADT numbers and it was around 56000 for 40 and 44000 for 64, and trucks were 20% on 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2017, 07:59:17 AM
NCDOT is building a new I-26/US-74 interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is saddling up for serious construction.

The heavy lifting to build a new interchange at Interstate 26 and U.S. 74 in Polk County begins this month with the goal of providing a safer and smoother driving experience for all motorists, including visitors and participants of the 2018 World Equestrian Games.

“This is an important project to the area, one that has been needed for many years,”  Acting Division 14 Engineer Brian Burch said. “We’re happy to get this project started and we’ll be working on an accelerated schedule to complete it prior to the World Games.”

The first phase of construction is to clear the project area in preparation of moving dirt and rocks and building embankments for the new roadway.  A creek channel change and 353-foot long concrete box culvert will be constructed during the early stages.

The new interchange, at a cost of $19 million, will separate through traffic from local traffic and be completed by Aug. 17, 2018, in time for visitors from across the globe to enjoy an event that is comparable to the Olympics.

Vecellio & Grogan, Inc DBA Sharpe Brothers, based in Beckley, W.V., will be creating a direct merge lane from U.S. 74 West to I-26 East, which will eliminate the need for drivers to navigate two roundabouts. It will also build a new ramp from I-26 West to U.S. 74 and it will include two bridges and eight retaining walls.

Multiple operations will be performed at the same time in order to finish the job ahead of the completion date.  There will be times in which work will be performed around the clock utilizing multiple crews.

Lane closures and lane shifts will be in place at various times during construction on both I-26 and U.S. 74. Drivers need to adjust their travel times, be aware in this work zone and obey all posted signs and flagging instructions.

“We are pleased to be improving area transportation in time for the World Games,”  Burch said, “It’s also an improvement that will have a lasting positive impact on residents and visitors for many years to come.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2017, 04:56:10 AM
NCDOT is building a new I-26/US-74 interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is saddling up for serious construction.

The heavy lifting to build a new interchange at Interstate 26 and U.S. 74 in Polk County begins this month with the goal of providing a safer and smoother driving experience for all motorists, including visitors and participants of the 2018 World Equestrian Games.

“This is an important project to the area, one that has been needed for many years,”  Acting Division 14 Engineer Brian Burch said. “We’re happy to get this project started and we’ll be working on an accelerated schedule to complete it prior to the World Games.”

The first phase of construction is to clear the project area in preparation of moving dirt and rocks and building embankments for the new roadway.  A creek channel change and 353-foot long concrete box culvert will be constructed during the early stages.

The new interchange, at a cost of $19 million, will separate through traffic from local traffic and be completed by Aug. 17, 2018, in time for visitors from across the globe to enjoy an event that is comparable to the Olympics.

Vecellio & Grogan, Inc DBA Sharpe Brothers, based in Beckley, W.V., will be creating a direct merge lane from U.S. 74 West to I-26 East, which will eliminate the need for drivers to navigate two roundabouts. It will also build a new ramp from I-26 West to U.S. 74 and it will include two bridges and eight retaining walls.

Multiple operations will be performed at the same time in order to finish the job ahead of the completion date.  There will be times in which work will be performed around the clock utilizing multiple crews.

Lane closures and lane shifts will be in place at various times during construction on both I-26 and U.S. 74. Drivers need to adjust their travel times, be aware in this work zone and obey all posted signs and flagging instructions.

“We are pleased to be improving area transportation in time for the World Games,”  Burch said, “It’s also an improvement that will have a lasting positive impact on residents and visitors for many years to come.”

Hmmmm......wonder if this is the opening salvo regarding the much bandied-about upgrading of US 74 to Interstate standards (and then seeing about getting a I-designation; after all, this is NC!). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2017, 05:45:42 AM
It's a very safe bet. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, I'd look for NCDOT to apply for an I-x26 between I-26 and I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 25, 2017, 07:50:44 AM
NCDOT is building a new I-26/US-74 interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is saddling up for serious construction.

The heavy lifting to build a new interchange at Interstate 26 and U.S. 74 in Polk County begins this month with the goal of providing a safer and smoother driving experience for all motorists, including visitors and participants of the 2018 World Equestrian Games.

“This is an important project to the area, one that has been needed for many years,”  Acting Division 14 Engineer Brian Burch said. “We’re happy to get this project started and we’ll be working on an accelerated schedule to complete it prior to the World Games.”

The first phase of construction is to clear the project area in preparation of moving dirt and rocks and building embankments for the new roadway.  A creek channel change and 353-foot long concrete box culvert will be constructed during the early stages.

The new interchange, at a cost of $19 million, will separate through traffic from local traffic and be completed by Aug. 17, 2018, in time for visitors from across the globe to enjoy an event that is comparable to the Olympics.

Vecellio & Grogan, Inc DBA Sharpe Brothers, based in Beckley, W.V., will be creating a direct merge lane from U.S. 74 West to I-26 East, which will eliminate the need for drivers to navigate two roundabouts. It will also build a new ramp from I-26 West to U.S. 74 and it will include two bridges and eight retaining walls.

Multiple operations will be performed at the same time in order to finish the job ahead of the completion date.  There will be times in which work will be performed around the clock utilizing multiple crews.

Lane closures and lane shifts will be in place at various times during construction on both I-26 and U.S. 74. Drivers need to adjust their travel times, be aware in this work zone and obey all posted signs and flagging instructions.

“We are pleased to be improving area transportation in time for the World Games,”  Burch said, “It’s also an improvement that will have a lasting positive impact on residents and visitors for many years to come.”

Hmmmm......wonder if this is the opening salvo regarding the much bandied-about upgrading of US 74 to Interstate standards (and then seeing about getting a I-designation; after all, this is NC!).
I think that the interchange is already interestate standard. It’s only putting in the missing freeway to freeway movements.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 25, 2017, 11:46:05 AM
NCDOT is building a new I-26/US-74 interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is saddling up for serious construction.

The heavy lifting to build a new interchange at Interstate 26 and U.S. 74 in Polk County begins this month with the goal of providing a safer and smoother driving experience for all motorists, including visitors and participants of the 2018 World Equestrian Games.

“This is an important project to the area, one that has been needed for many years,”  Acting Division 14 Engineer Brian Burch said. “We’re happy to get this project started and we’ll be working on an accelerated schedule to complete it prior to the World Games.”

The first phase of construction is to clear the project area in preparation of moving dirt and rocks and building embankments for the new roadway.  A creek channel change and 353-foot long concrete box culvert will be constructed during the early stages.

The new interchange, at a cost of $19 million, will separate through traffic from local traffic and be completed by Aug. 17, 2018, in time for visitors from across the globe to enjoy an event that is comparable to the Olympics.

Vecellio & Grogan, Inc DBA Sharpe Brothers, based in Beckley, W.V., will be creating a direct merge lane from U.S. 74 West to I-26 East, which will eliminate the need for drivers to navigate two roundabouts. It will also build a new ramp from I-26 West to U.S. 74 and it will include two bridges and eight retaining walls.

Multiple operations will be performed at the same time in order to finish the job ahead of the completion date.  There will be times in which work will be performed around the clock utilizing multiple crews.

Lane closures and lane shifts will be in place at various times during construction on both I-26 and U.S. 74. Drivers need to adjust their travel times, be aware in this work zone and obey all posted signs and flagging instructions.

“We are pleased to be improving area transportation in time for the World Games,”  Burch said, “It’s also an improvement that will have a lasting positive impact on residents and visitors for many years to come.”

Hmmmm......wonder if this is the opening salvo regarding the much bandied-about upgrading of US 74 to Interstate standards (and then seeing about getting a I-designation; after all, this is NC!).
I think that the interchange is already interestate standard. It’s only putting in the missing freeway to freeway movements.


iPhone


Yeah the interchange is interstate standard as shoulders look interstate standard, but east of that interchange? I don't know.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2017, 01:05:02 PM
Yeah the interchange is interstate standard as shoulders look interstate standard, but east of that interchange? I don't know.

From what GSV shows and from what I've gathered from previous info, the shoulders along the US 74 freeway east of US 26 are not at Interstate standard, but are built to much the same standards as US 64 through the Rocky Mount area, which, of course, will have to be widened to satisfy Interstate (87) criteria.  What I'm wondering is if the now under construction Shelby bypass east of the existing US 74 freeway is being constructed to the higher standard?  If so, then that might give us a clue as to NCDOT's future plans for this corridor. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 25, 2017, 01:34:46 PM
Yeah the interchange is interstate standard as shoulders look interstate standard, but east of that interchange? I don't know.

From what GSV shows and from what I've gathered from previous info, the shoulders along the US 74 freeway east of US 26 are not at Interstate standard, but are built to much the same standards as US 64 through the Rocky Mount area, which, of course, will have to be widened to satisfy Interstate (87) criteria.  What I'm wondering is if the now under construction Shelby bypass east of the existing US 74 freeway is being constructed to the higher standard?  If so, then that might give us a clue as to NCDOT's future plans for this corridor. 

US 74 BYpass of Shelby is being built to interstate standards - https://apps.ncdot.gov/NewsReleases/details.aspx?r=9961

The westernmost segment (2 miles) is open.  Does anyone know if it is posted as anything?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 25, 2017, 08:18:38 PM
I commuted 74 daily for 3 months ending recently getting on Ellenboro and off at the 74A Forest City exit, but frequently going home went 74 east to 226 in Shelby.  It is true that shoulders are lacking, but even more important is there are an at grade or 2 where Bus 74 hits 74 between Ellenboro and Shelby.  The last trip home via 74 and 226, I noted that slip form paving equipment has arrived at the 226 exit.  Even though it is only graded from 74, soon to be Bus 74 east to 226, there is a big Walmart distribution center at the future exit and I think the want to get all those WB trucks off Dixon Blvd ASAP.  BTW, ALL of Dixon BLVD is a traffic nightmare most of the day everyday now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 26, 2017, 05:12:10 PM
It's a very safe bet. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, I'd look for NCDOT to apply for an I-x26 between I-26 and I-85.

It's very obvious too.  The fact they leaving US 74 along its current route through Shelby but creating a "By-Pass" US 74 is likely a temporary measure, similar to "By-Pass US 70 in Goldsboro later becoming I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on October 26, 2017, 05:53:15 PM
It's a very safe bet. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, I'd look for NCDOT to apply for an I-x26 between I-26 and I-85.

It's very obvious too.  The fact they leaving US 74 along its current route through Shelby but creating a "By-Pass" US 74 is likely a temporary measure, similar to "By-Pass US 70 in Goldsboro later becoming I-42.

NCDOT is also doing the same with the Monroe Expressway. Though I wonder if that particular bypass would be eligible for becoming an Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 26, 2017, 06:05:06 PM
It's a very safe bet. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, I'd look for NCDOT to apply for an I-x26 between I-26 and I-85.

It's very obvious too.  The fact they leaving US 74 along its current route through Shelby but creating a "By-Pass" US 74 is likely a temporary measure, similar to "By-Pass US 70 in Goldsboro later becoming I-42.

NCDOT is also doing the same with the Monroe Expressway. Though I wonder if that particular bypass would be eligible for becoming an Interstate.

I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2017, 06:39:30 PM
It's a very safe bet. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, I'd look for NCDOT to apply for an I-x26 between I-26 and I-85.

It's very obvious too.  The fact they leaving US 74 along its current route through Shelby but creating a "By-Pass" US 74 is likely a temporary measure, similar to "By-Pass US 70 in Goldsboro later becoming I-42.

NCDOT is also doing the same with the Monroe Expressway. Though I wonder if that particular bypass would be eligible for becoming an Interstate.

I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).
I favor having a 2di all the way from I-26 to Wilmington, but so far I don't hear anyone (outside this forum) talking about that. I believe the I-x26 designation between I-26 and I-85 is likely to happen within the next 2-3 years, though. It can be folded into a 2di later, like the short-lived I-495 being folded into I-87 east of Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on October 26, 2017, 09:01:41 PM
I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).

Being North Carolina, why not start right out with a 2di route, say I-30? :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 26, 2017, 09:40:44 PM
I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).

Being North Carolina, why not start right out with a 2di route, say I-30? :spin:

But there's already an I-30, and plenty of other unused numbers in the region.

...which is why it's just what NCDOT would do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 26, 2017, 11:55:50 PM
I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).

Being North Carolina, why not start right out with a 2di route, say I-30? :spin:

But there's already an I-30, and plenty of other unused numbers in the region.

...which is why it's just what NCDOT would do.

And if AASHTO follows suit as they did with the despicable designation I-87, they just might subtract 2 from the NCDOT request and end up with I-28.  I think we all could live with that!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 29, 2017, 07:45:52 AM
I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).

Being North Carolina, why not start right out with a 2di route, say I-30? :spin:

But there's already an I-30, and plenty of other unused numbers in the region.

...which is why it's just what NCDOT would do.

And if AASHTO follows suit as they did with the despicable designation I-87, they just might subtract 2 from the NCDOT request and end up with I-28.  I think we all could live with that!

But that number would make too much sense, since it's about perfect even when you don't go through NCDOT logic first as you did.

Next extend it all the way to Wilmington!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 29, 2017, 06:30:46 PM
I'd say there's a 50-50 chance NCDOT will ask for a x26 or x85 for US 74 in that area; the other chance is that they will wait until the Monroe bypass is completed, propose an extension to Rockingham -- and ask for an even 2di between 28 and 38 for the combination (using duplexes where appropriate).

Being North Carolina, why not start right out with a 2di route, say I-30? :spin:

But there's already an I-30, and plenty of other unused numbers in the region.

...which is why it's just what NCDOT would do.

And if AASHTO follows suit as they did with the despicable designation I-87, they just might subtract 2 from the NCDOT request and end up with I-28.  I think we all could live with that!

But that number would make too much sense, since it's about perfect even when you don't go through NCDOT logic first as you did.

Next extend it all the way to Wilmington!

Now that would make way too much sense!  Besides, one would have to go back and alter/fix the 1995 NHS legislation that produced the convolution that is I-74 in SE NC! (and try to buttonhole any congressperson to get behind something like that idea, which neither reeks of ideology nor prompts re-election funding!).  Any I-28, 32, 34, 36, or 38 would probably terminate in Rockingham (unless NC somehow gets the bright idea to drag it up US 1 to Raleigh).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 30, 2017, 09:29:01 AM
Now that would make way too much sense!  Besides, one would have to go back and alter/fix the 1995 NHS legislation that produced the convolution that is I-74 in SE NC! (and try to buttonhole any congressperson to get behind something like that idea, which neither reeks of ideology nor prompts re-election funding!).  Any I-28, 32, 34, 36, or 38 would probably terminate in Rockingham (unless NC somehow gets the bright idea to drag it up US 1 to Raleigh).

My evolving opinion on I-74 at this point is to change the Federal law on it.  Remove the states north of North Carolina and request a number change from AASHTO to better fit the truncated area; change the eastern end towards Wilmington and change SC 31 into a spur of I-73.  All we need now is a Congressman to agree to that idea and push it on the next transportation bill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 30, 2017, 02:10:24 PM
There will be a public hearing next Monday night in Morganton to discuss improvements to I-40, exit 103 for US 64.  I would call this as currently the worst traffic mess in the area.  The East half of the bridge over 40 is original from the late 1950's.  A large amount of the traffic approaching the interchange want to go left.  Way more capacity is needed for US 64 WB going left to 40 EB due to the nearby community college and the huge shipping facility on  Fleming Dr.  I could almost see a diverging down and or SPUI needed here.  They are contemplating business demolition and access control on 64.

I could not make the meeting but the images are available on line.  It will be an SPUI.  A new 8 Lane bridge will be built immediately West of the existing 1957 bridge.  All Lefts will be 2 lanes except 40w to 64 w, which will be a triple left.  The cost will be $45m, of which $18m is ROW.  It looks like everything on the west side of Burkemont from the he signal at Lowe's to just short of the Cook Out is being razed, even a small national chain hotel.  There will be auxillary clanes added to 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  The 64 overpass will allow an 8 Lane 40 underneath.  They had 2006 ADT numbers and it was around 56000 for 40 and 44000 for 64, and trucks were 20% on 64.


So, they are eventually going to widen I-40 to 6-8 lanes in the future. Is it going to be in Morganton area, or is it all the way to Statesville?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 30, 2017, 03:20:07 PM
This article caught my eye when I was reading the article about I-140 linked to on the Twitter page.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171030/officials-want-to-see-i-140-get-second-interstate-shield

Snippet of article.
Quote
SOUTHEASTERN N.C. -- If local officials and the N.C. Department of Transportation (DOT) get their way, a 57-mile stretch of U.S. 74 and Interstate 140 from Whiteville to Market Street in Porters Neck will be designated as a future stretch of I-74.

“I think it clarifies our intention for it to be an interstate sometime in the future,”  said Karen Collette, DOT division engineer for the region that includes Southeastern North Carolina. “It gives us a start.”

The idea has the support of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which assists the DOT with identifying local transportation priorities.

The designation would apply for U.S. 74 from Whiteville to I-140, which is scheduled to open Dec. 15, then I-140 from its intersection with U.S. 74 to its intersection with U.S. 17 northeast of Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 30, 2017, 04:00:47 PM
It would make more sense IMO for I-74 to stick with US-74/US-76 and end at downtown Wilmington right after crossing the Cape Fear River rather than follow I-140.

But hey, either way makes a hell of a lot more sense than sending I-74 to Myrtle Beach.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 30, 2017, 06:31:36 PM
Now that would make way too much sense!  Besides, one would have to go back and alter/fix the 1995 NHS legislation that produced the convolution that is I-74 in SE NC! (and try to buttonhole any congressperson to get behind something like that idea, which neither reeks of ideology nor prompts re-election funding!).  Any I-28, 32, 34, 36, or 38 would probably terminate in Rockingham (unless NC somehow gets the bright idea to drag it up US 1 to Raleigh).

My evolving opinion on I-74 at this point is to change the Federal law on it.  Remove the states north of North Carolina and request a number change from AASHTO to better fit the truncated area; change the eastern end towards Wilmington and change SC 31 into a spur of I-73.  All we need now is a Congressman to agree to that idea and push it on the next transportation bill.
I agree. From an NC perspective, the best number for an interstate along US 74 would be I-36, because there is no NC 36. AASHTO would probably be OK with that number.

If we can clean up the I-74 mess, we would also need a new number for the section of I-74 between Randleman (I-73) and Mt. Airy (I-77). Obviously this could be an I-x73. But it's nearly 80 miles, so another 2di might not be out of the question.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 30, 2017, 09:04:16 PM
Now that would make way too much sense!  Besides, one would have to go back and alter/fix the 1995 NHS legislation that produced the convolution that is I-74 in SE NC! (and try to buttonhole any congressperson to get behind something like that idea, which neither reeks of ideology nor prompts re-election funding!).  Any I-28, 32, 34, 36, or 38 would probably terminate in Rockingham (unless NC somehow gets the bright idea to drag it up US 1 to Raleigh).

My evolving opinion on I-74 at this point is to change the Federal law on it.  Remove the states north of North Carolina and request a number change from AASHTO to better fit the truncated area; change the eastern end towards Wilmington and change SC 31 into a spur of I-73.  All we need now is a Congressman to agree to that idea and push it on the next transportation bill.
I agree. From an NC perspective, the best number for an interstate along US 74 would be I-36, because there is no NC 36. AASHTO would probably be OK with that number.

If we can clean up the I-74 mess, we would also need a new number for the section of I-74 between Randleman (I-73) and Mt. Airy (I-77). Obviously this could be an I-x73. But it's nearly 80 miles, so another 2di might not be out of the question.

That section of current/planned I-74 is a diagonal with a trajectory largely parallel to I-26 to the west.  As such, it could see an even-numbered designation; as it would cross I-40, it could choose another (preferably currently unused!!!!!) from the mostly available 28-38 and 46-56 pools, as long as it was higher that the one appropriated for US 74.  Were it my decision, it would be I-36 for the US 74 corridor for the very reasons cited above, and I-48 for the section through W-S, as it's far enough away from NC 48 as to not give NCDOT fits.  All that being said -- it's unlikely that there will be a change as long as someone somewhere in a position of influence still thinks that the whole I-73/74 corridor to the Midwest is still a viable prospect.  It might be "tweaked" by sending I-74 to Wilmington rather than Myrtle Beach -- but beyond that at least another decade or so of inaction/apathy north of Roanoke might be needed to make the remaining "whole-corridor" backers have second thoughts.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 30, 2017, 09:48:49 PM
There will be a public hearing next Monday night in Morganton to discuss improvements to I-40, exit 103 for US 64.  I would call this as currently the worst traffic mess in the area.  The East half of the bridge over 40 is original from the late 1950's.  A large amount of the traffic approaching the interchange want to go left.  Way more capacity is needed for US 64 WB going left to 40 EB due to the nearby community college and the huge shipping facility on  Fleming Dr.  I could almost see a diverging down and or SPUI needed here.  They are contemplating business demolition and access control on 64.

I could not make the meeting but the images are available on line.  It will be an SPUI.  A new 8 Lane bridge will be built immediately West of the existing 1957 bridge.  All Lefts will be 2 lanes except 40w to 64 w, which will be a triple left.  The cost will be $45m, of which $18m is ROW.  It looks like everything on the west side of Burkemont from the he signal at Lowe's to just short of the Cook Out is being razed, even a small national chain hotel.  There will be auxillary clanes added to 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  The 64 overpass will allow an 8 Lane 40 underneath.  They had 2006 ADT numbers and it was around 56000 for 40 and 44000 for 64, and trucks were 20% on 64.


So, they are eventually going to widen I-40 to 6-8 lanes in the future. Is it going to be in Morganton area, or is it all the way to Statesville?

From my research, it appears that the newest STIP has I-40 going to 8 lanes from Exit 123 to 126 (US 321 to McDade Blvd in Hickory) and from there, 6 lanes to I-77 in Statesville.  I would advocate going 6 lanes west to exit 119, it is needed, and no bridges would need to be replaced.  Also on the rada screen is the US 321 upgrade from US 70 to Granite Falls.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 02, 2017, 08:13:40 AM
GMSV from Dec 2016 shows US 158 posted on US 29 Bypass in Reidville in at least two places and there were covered BGSs that may also have 158 shields.

Here is a Nov 2016 GMSV shot of them literally putting up the US 158 posting on NC 87 leaving US 29 Business: https://goo.gl/maps/8ookkxg8apP2

So the US 158 reroute is finally completed...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 02, 2017, 12:16:04 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to improve the surface of a 16-mile stretch of I-40 in Johnston County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14556 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14556)

Quote
A 16-mile swath of Interstate 40 in Johnston County will become smoother soon.

Penhall Co. of Los Angeles recently received a nearly $10.2 million contract from the N.C. Department of Transportation to improve the surface of I-40 between Exit 313 near N.C. 42 and just past the I-40/I-95 interchange in Benson.

Workers will use a cost-effective process known as diamond grinding to smooth out the existing concrete surface of the lanes, and they will repair any cracks and potholes with concrete. Additionally, they will resurface the asphalt on the I-40 ramps at N.C. 210.

The work will occur outside of the morning and evening commutes on I-40, and work will not be done during busier travel times on the weekends. All of the work on the ramps and loops at the I-40 and I-95 interchange will be done at night.

The project also includes rehabilitating several I-40 overpasses: The decks on 10 bridges will be replaced with a more durable concrete material that reduces long-term maintenance costs, and four bridges will be sandblasted and get fresh coats of paint. Some of the bridges’ substructure will be repaired.

The contractor may begin work after Nov. 27, and has until July 1, 2019 to complete the project.

This is one of six road and bridge contracts recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $38.8 million, which was about $1.2 million under engineer estimates.

For real-time travel information, go to DriveNC.gov, or follow NCDOT on Twitter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 02, 2017, 02:32:19 PM
Here is a Nov 2016 GMSV shot of them literally putting up the US 158 posting on NC 87 leaving US 29 Business: https://goo.gl/maps/8ookkxg8apP2

That might just be one of the coolest things, roadgeek wise, that I've ever seen on GSV.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 02, 2017, 04:13:36 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 02, 2017, 04:28:14 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?

It was already NC 14 which was cosigned with US 158 to US 29.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on November 02, 2017, 07:03:16 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?

It was already NC 14 which was cosigned with US 158 to US 29.


Yes, that is correct. US 158 is already rerouted to follow US 29 (future I-785) for 2-3 miles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 02, 2017, 11:13:08 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?

It was already NC 14 which was cosigned with US 158 to US 29.


Yes, that is correct. US 158 is already rerouted to follow US 29 (future I-785) for 2-3 miles.

Was Strategic Highway Corridor 37 changed as well? I'm asking so I can update OSM.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 09, 2017, 09:21:11 AM
Here's a map of a freeway beltline (dated 7-5-2017) proposed by the Greenville Urban Area MPO. The Southwest Bypass that's currently under construction would be part of it if this comes to fruition.

http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=14981 (http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=14981)

Anybody that's ever been to Greenville (including me) knows that the city has terrible traffic with poor highway infrastructure. However, this beltline seems a bit overkill to me, particularly the southern part that stretches south of Ayden. It would make better sense to bring it between Ayden and Winterville, IMO.

Even if the rest of the beltline never gets built beyond the current SW Bypass, I'm still very much in favor of the new US-13 interchange north of Greenville.

The beltline is included in the city's list of future projects.

http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=15030 (http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=15030)

Any thoughts? :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 09, 2017, 12:21:51 PM
Go south of Ayden, Greenville's growth is south - it would  be easier to get ROW access that way.

So if 11/13 becomes an interstate - good to see they will connect to 264 not at the current interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 10, 2017, 03:22:46 AM
Unlike that other Eastern NC city "Wilmington" I am glad that Greenville has an ambitious plan to build a beltway around the city and they are trying to plan for future growth. 

Back in the early 90's, Wilmington had a opportunity to build a expressway south and east of the city it would have ran from Monkey Junction up towards the Mayfaire shopping area.  I think it was called the "Southern Outer Loop" but too much opposition from residents at the time put a halt to the project. If only those same residents would have thought things out 20-25 years later.  There is no easy way to get from Southern New Hanover County and head for points east such as Porter's Neck or Hampstead.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 10, 2017, 09:37:09 AM
Unlike that other Eastern NC city "Wilmington" I am glad that Greenville has an ambitious plan to build a beltway around the city and they are trying to plan for future growth. 

Back in the early 90's, Wilmington had a opportunity to build a expressway south and east of the city it would have ran from Monkey Junction up towards the Mayfaire shopping area.  I think it was called the "Southern Outer Loop" but too much opposition from residents at the time put a halt to the project. If only those same residents would have thought things out 20-25 years later.  There is no easy way to get from Southern New Hanover County and head for points east such as Porter's Neck or Hampstead.

The same residents are against it today - the Cape Fear Skyway is a long time off if ever. The town of Leland heavily challenged it 5-10 years ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 10, 2017, 10:09:59 AM
There's also the matter of the Cape Fear Skyway needing to be a fairly huge bridge in terms of both height and length...not cheap.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on November 10, 2017, 11:08:19 AM
Here's a map of a freeway beltline (dated 7-5-2017) proposed by the Greenville Urban Area MPO. The Southwest Bypass that's currently under construction would be part of it if this comes to fruition.

http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=14981 (http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=14981)

Anybody that's ever been to Greenville (including me) knows that the city has terrible traffic with poor highway infrastructure. However, this beltline seems a bit overkill to me, particularly the southern part that stretches south of Ayden. It would make better sense to bring it between Ayden and Winterville, IMO.

Even if the rest of the beltline never gets built beyond the current SW Bypass, I'm still very much in favor of the new US-13 interchange north of Greenville.

The beltline is included in the city's list of future projects.

http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=15030 (http://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=15030)

Any thoughts? :hmm:

I can tell you that getting up to the hospital on Statonsburg Rd is an absolute nightmare if you're coming up from New Bern. It takes forever to work yourself over from NC-43 to that side of town.

The last time I had to go up there (my wife had an allergic reaction to peanuts while in training to be a detention officer) I decided to try the back way by heading out to Grifton and working may way north on NC-11 and although it was a smoother ride traffic wise it still took forever and a day to get there.

It looks like this proposed beltway would help out a great deal with that kind of movement. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to get built, though.




Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2017, 11:25:43 AM
Go south of Ayden, Greenville's growth is south - it would  be easier to get ROW access that way.

So if 11/13 becomes an interstate - good to see they will connect to 264 not at the current interchange.

Yeah, that's why I'm in favor of the new US-13 interchange since the existing one would be impossible to upgrade thanks to the railroad and Patheon. Upgrading NC-11 between the future interchange with the future Harvey Parkway extension in Kinston and Ayden has already been included in the STIP and as far as I know, Kinston and Greenville are still very much in support of the Kinston-Bethel interstate. I think it's very likely it will eventually become another I-x87. There hasn't been another attempt to get the Eastern NC Gateway Act through Congress after the useless attempt last year before the elections, but I wouldn't put it past them to try again in the not-too-far future.

As for the rest of the proposed beltline, I could easily see it becoming another I-x87. However, I think the new northern connection to US-13 and the southeast section are the most important right now. I don't think there's an urgent need for the northeast section at the moment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on November 10, 2017, 03:30:11 PM
Unlike that other Eastern NC city "Wilmington" I am glad that Greenville has an ambitious plan to build a beltway around the city and they are trying to plan for future growth. 
Back in the early 90's, Wilmington had a opportunity to build a expressway south and east of the city it would have ran from Monkey Junction up towards the Mayfaire shopping area.  I think it was called the "Southern Outer Loop" but too much opposition from residents at the time put a halt to the project. If only those same residents would have thought things out 20-25 years later.  There is no easy way to get from Southern New Hanover County and head for points east such as Porter's Neck or Hampstead.

Where would you build a freeway loop south and east of Wilmington?  Satellite images show that any possible freeway alignment would involve massive right-of-way takings of residences, and some would be right up near the coastline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on November 10, 2017, 09:38:44 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?

It was already NC 14 which was cosigned with US 158 to US 29.


Yes, that is correct. US 158 is already rerouted to follow US 29 (future I-785) for 2-3 miles.

What was wrong with the northern route?  Heck what is wrong with the through route?  Would it not be faster now just to use the old old route?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 10, 2017, 09:53:16 PM
So this reroute put US around the opposite side of Reidsville, along NC 87 and US 29? And what was the remaining piece on the north side of town changed to? NC 14 extension or unnumbered?

It was already NC 14 which was cosigned with US 158 to US 29.


Yes, that is correct. US 158 is already rerouted to follow US 29 (future I-785) for 2-3 miles.

What was wrong with the northern route?  Heck what is wrong with the through route?  Would it not be faster now just to use the old old route?

Here is the official reason behind it...be sure to look through the whole document

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Proposed/Correspondence%20100309%20Almond%20to%20Conti.pdf

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 11, 2017, 05:46:38 PM
Where would you build a freeway loop south and east of Wilmington?  Satellite images show that any possible freeway alignment would involve massive right-of-way takings of residences, and some would be right up near the coastline.
[/quote]

It would be cost prohibitive to build today because of all the taking of residences, but 20-25 years Southern New Hanover County and Monkey Junction was a lot less developed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 20, 2017, 06:49:44 PM
NCDOT is opening a new interchange on NC 87 at US 701 in Elizabethtown:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14599

There's no danger of NC 87 becoming a freeway, but it was identified in 2013 as a Strategic Transportation Corridor between Fayetteville and Wilmington, giving improvements to the road  at least some priority.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on November 20, 2017, 07:01:22 PM
I just wanted to let y'all know that the interchange at US-17 and US-17 Business near the Jones/Craven County line is coming along quite well. I still have to get my picture storage situation straightened out (like many I got bit by the Photbucket BS and I have been too busy/lazy to set up a Flickr account) but I will be on vacation from Wednesday morning to the following Wednesday night so I should be able to get some decent pictures for ya.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 20, 2017, 07:06:34 PM
NCDOT is opening a new interchange on NC 87 at US 701 in Elizabethtown:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14599

There's no danger of NC 87 becoming a freeway, but it was identified in 2013 as a Strategic Transportation Corridor between Fayetteville and Wilmington, giving improvements to the road  at least some priority.

I passed through there last month on my way to visit my cousin in Clarkton and I figured by the looks of it that it would be opening soon. I drove NC-87 from I-95 to US-701 and the highway seemed very adequate to me, minus the sections going through Tar Heel and Dublin and even then it wasn't too bad. There was also very little traffic the whole way. I've never driven NC-87 beyond Elizabethtown, so I can't speak for the rest of the corridor.

I will say that NC-87 is one of THE most boring ass drives I've ever done. It seemed to go on forever in the middle of absolutely nowhere. :ded:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 21, 2017, 07:45:41 AM
^ You haven't been on US 264 in Hyde or Dare Counties (or on NC 94), have you?

Regarding the new interchange, looks like NC 242 got slightly realigned as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 21, 2017, 12:41:23 PM
^ You haven't been on US 264 in Hyde or Dare Counties (or on NC 94), have you?

Nope, I can't say that I have. The easternmost point on US-264 I've ever been was Washington and that was nearly 20 years ago. Since then, it's just been between Raleigh and Greenville.

But I certainly don't doubt the point you're making.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 22, 2017, 12:21:50 PM
NC 87 is pretty boring and the 55 MPH Speed Limit sure doesn't help either, but I actually think US 74 from I-95 to Wilmington is worst,
 at least on NC 87 you see a lot of fields and trees.  On US 74 it's just trees.

NC 87 is just a lonely 2 lane road from south of Elizabethtown to US 74/76.  The NCDOT was going to widen the whole 30 mile stretch but in the latest STIP report that has changed, now only a 6 mile section from NC 11 to US 74/76 is slated to be widened.  Construction won't begin until 2027 though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 04, 2017, 10:17:38 AM
NCDOT is planning to widen NC-42 in Johnston County between NC-50 and US-70 Business in Clayton.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14637 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14637)

Quote
To ease traffic congestion and plan for expected growth, state transportation officials are finalizing a proposal to widen an eight-mile stretch of N.C. 42 in a fast-developing area of Johnston County.

The proposal would widen what now is largely a two-lane road into four lanes with a divided median between U.S. 70 Business inside Clayton and N.C. 50, west of Interstate 40.

The N.C. Department of Transportation is launching a new website with more information about the $66 million proposed project and mailing newsletters to residents and property owners along the corridor.

New homes and businesses continue to sprout along N.C. 42, where some sections carry more than 22,000 vehicles on the average day. The department is forecasting daily traffic volumes to reach 35,000 on the highway in less than 25 years.

 “Traffic congestion is perhaps the No. 1 issue in our area, so we are committed to continuing to work with NCDOT to address this concern,”  Clayton Mayor Jody McLeod said. “We appreciate that NCDOT is responding to this challenge of meeting the needs of Clayton’s incredible growth.”

The proposed project offers other benefits: The additional travel lanes would ease traffic delays during rush hour and make it easier for motorists to pull out from side streets. In addition, NCDOT would replace three N.C. 42 bridges that date from the 1940s and 1960s.

Department engineers and consultants are studying options of where to expand the highway. They plan to schedule a public meeting next spring, when a preliminary design will be available. Construction would start in 2022.

The proposal is separate from a plan by NCDOT to improve the interchange of I-40 and N.C. 42 and add two lanes in each direction along I-40 between Exit 301 and Exit 312. More information about this project can be found on the NCDOT website. The project bisects the portion where N.C. 42 would be widened. State highway engineers will closely coordinate both projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 04, 2017, 01:23:02 PM
NCDOT is planning to widen NC-42 in Johnston County between NC-50 and US-70 Business in Clayton.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14637 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14637)
Which will happen first, the widening of NC 42, or the signing of I-42 on US 70 that crosses over NC 42.

Quote
To ease traffic congestion and plan for expected growth, state transportation officials are finalizing a proposal to widen an eight-mile stretch of N.C. 42 in a fast-developing area of Johnston County.

The proposal would widen what now is largely a two-lane road into four lanes with a divided median between U.S. 70 Business inside Clayton and N.C. 50, west of Interstate 40.

The N.C. Department of Transportation is launching a new website with more information about the $66 million proposed project and mailing newsletters to residents and property owners along the corridor.

New homes and businesses continue to sprout along N.C. 42, where some sections carry more than 22,000 vehicles on the average day. The department is forecasting daily traffic volumes to reach 35,000 on the highway in less than 25 years.

 “Traffic congestion is perhaps the No. 1 issue in our area, so we are committed to continuing to work with NCDOT to address this concern,”  Clayton Mayor Jody McLeod said. “We appreciate that NCDOT is responding to this challenge of meeting the needs of Clayton’s incredible growth.”

The proposed project offers other benefits: The additional travel lanes would ease traffic delays during rush hour and make it easier for motorists to pull out from side streets. In addition, NCDOT would replace three N.C. 42 bridges that date from the 1940s and 1960s.

Department engineers and consultants are studying options of where to expand the highway. They plan to schedule a public meeting next spring, when a preliminary design will be available. Construction would start in 2022.

The proposal is separate from a plan by NCDOT to improve the interchange of I-40 and N.C. 42 and add two lanes in each direction along I-40 between Exit 301 and Exit 312. More information about this project can be found on the NCDOT website. The project bisects the portion where N.C. 42 would be widened. State highway engineers will closely coordinate both projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 04, 2017, 01:51:38 PM
Which will happen first, the widening of NC 42, or the signing of I-42 on US 70 that crosses over NC 42.

My guess is that NC-42 will be widened before the Clayton Bypass becomes I-42. NCDOT could easily request I-42 shields for the Clayton Bypass (as well as the Goldsboro Bypass) if they really wanted to. The bypass connects to an existing interstate and ends at a US route. They seem to want to wait until US-70 is upgraded between Clayton and Goldsboro before they pursue I-42 shields for US-70. Another issue is that the US-70 Corridor Commission is concerned about the reduced weight limits that will go into effect once I-42 starts getting signed. The commission mentioned finding a solution to the issue, which likely means getting the local Congressmen to attempt grandfathering the existing weight limits once US-70 becomes I-42, the way Wisconsin did for I-41/US-41.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 04, 2017, 04:52:12 PM
I actually lived on NC 50 for a summer internship at NCDOT a few years ago.  I am sure that the widening of NC 42 is a necessity, but I am unsure if NC 50 from NC 42 to US 70 (well at least to Timber Dr) in Garner should not be a bigger priority.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2017, 01:49:22 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to mill and resurface US-29 (Future I-785) between US-158 near Reidsville and the Caswell County line.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14639 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14639)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $4.9 million contract to mill and resurface a 24-mile section of U.S. 29 between U.S. 158 in Rockingham County and the Caswell County line.

“The contract entails milling and resurfacing of the asphalt as well as the replacement and painting of pavement markings; which will ultimately create a smother and safer ride for drivers traveling between Rockingham and Caswell counties and the Virginia state line,”  said NCDOT Division Engineer Mike Mills.

Work can begin as early as July 2018, and completion is anticipated by November 2019.

Sharpe Brothers Inc. of Greensboro is the contractor for this project.

This was one of nine road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $275.3 million, about $12.7 million under engineer estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on December 06, 2017, 02:03:05 PM
NC is just hog wild with road building. Doesn't anyone appreciate rural roads or driving through town?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on December 06, 2017, 05:49:58 PM
NC is just hog wild with road building. Doesn't anyone appreciate rural roads or driving through town?

(a) apparently not enough to make a difference; (b) your friendly local state delegate/representative/senator can't point to the status quo as a reason for their re-election. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 06, 2017, 06:38:23 PM
NC is just hog wild with road building. Doesn't anyone appreciate rural roads or driving through town?

(a) apparently not enough to make a difference; (b) your friendly local state delegate/representative/senator can't point to the status quo as a reason for their re-election. 

Or the more accurate c - counties like here in Wake that sees a net migration of 40 new residents a day.

http://www.wakegov.com/planning/peopleandplaces/Pages/default.aspx

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2017, 09:09:37 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to mill and resurface US-70 Business in Johnston County from the Wake County line to US-70 (Clayton Bypass).

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14638 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14638)

Quote
A smoother — and safer — ride awaits people who use an eight-mile section of U.S. 70 Business in Johnston County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $6.6 million contract to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut, to mill out the old asphalt and resurface the business highway between the Wake County line and U.S. 70 Bypass south of. To improve safety and traffic flow through the intersections, the contractor also will reconfigure several median openings between Shotwell Road and N.C. 42 in Clayton. The new traffic pattern will direct left turns from the highway onto the side roads; motorists on those side streets will turn right and make a U-turn, if they wish to go in the opposite direction.

Additionally, the contractor will repave the U.S. 70 Business westbound ramp at the U.S. 70 Bypass, as well as sections of Barbour and Hamby streets near U.S. 70 in Clayton.

Weather depending, the contractor may start work after Jan. 2, with the project expected to be substantially complete by November 2018. Landscaping work can continue through May 2019.

This was one of nine road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $275.3 million, about $12.7 million under engineer estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2017, 09:13:41 PM
An eastern section of the Greensboro Urban Loop (I-840/I-785) between US-70 and US-29 has opened tonight.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14644 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14644)

Quote
Originally slated for completion in December 2018, N.C. Department of Transportation contractors have exceeded the project delivery date of the Eastern Loop phase of construction of the Greensboro Urban Loop by more than a year, opening that portion of the loop to traffic at 8 p.m. Wednesday.

“One major department goal is to meet project deadlines, and we are delighted that with encouragement through incentives and weather conducive for construction, the contractor was able to complete this section early,”  said Board of Transportation Chair and Division Seven Board Member Michael Fox, who represents Guilford, Alamance, Caswell, Orange and Rockingham Counties.

“The contractor, Flatiron Construction/Blythe Development, hired extra crews, brought in sub-contractors, used additional equipment, worked overtime and weekends, all to get the work done early for some 30,000 vehicles that will travel on that section of highway,”  said Division Seven Engineer Mike Mills.

Contractors built the four-lane freeway between the U.S. 70 relocation and U.S. 29, completed the U.S. 70 interchange and built two new interchanges connecting the Greensboro Loop to Huffine Mill Road and U.S. 29.

Projected traffic volume along this section of highway will be around 58,000 vehicles per day by 2040, giving travelers from Virginia to northern Rockingham County the ability to get to I-40/85 in a more timely manner, while reducing congestion.

So what’s next? The Western Loop is scheduled to open Feb. 1, 2018, weather permitting. This will complete the loop with the exception of the last segment, between Battleground Avenue and Lawndale Drive, and Lawndale Avenue and U.S. 29. A contract for that work will be awarded in March 2018.

Once complete, the loop will allow traffic to bypass Greensboro and improve congestion on I-40, particularly in the loop that includes I-40, I-85 Business and U.S. routes 29, 70, 220 and 421.

NCDOT thanks motorists for their continued patience and urges drivers to watch for changing traffic patterns.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 07, 2017, 08:33:02 AM
Quote from: NCDOT
Once complete, the loop will allow traffic to bypass Greensboro and improve congestion on I-40, particularly in the loop that includes I-40, I-85 Business and U.S. routes 29, 70, 220 and 421.

I'm not convinced this will actually be the case.  For starters, it's a goodly bit distance north.  Second, there's already a much-shorter bypass loop for that busy section of I-40...namely following I-73 and I-85 around the south side of the city.  Third, there's probably enough latent demand along the I-40 corridor to where whatever the bypass pulls away will fill right back up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 07, 2017, 08:53:22 AM
Quote from: NCDOT
Once complete, the loop will allow traffic to bypass Greensboro and improve congestion on I-40, particularly in the loop that includes I-40, I-85 Business and U.S. routes 29, 70, 220 and 421.

I'm not convinced this will actually be the case.  For starters, it's a goodly bit distance north.  Second, there's already a much-shorter bypass loop for that busy section of I-40...namely following I-73 and I-85 around the south side of the city.  Third, there's probably enough latent demand along the I-40 corridor to where whatever the bypass pulls away will fill right back up.

I agree that it's borderline useless as a bypass for I-40 thru traffic, but the northern half is still useful for those wanting to reach US-29 and points north since it avoids "Death Valley" and vice-versa, whether traffic is coming or going from the eastern half or western half. It's also useful for those wanting to get to PTI airport or points north on I-73/US-220 from east of Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 07, 2017, 08:56:27 AM
Agree it'll be easier to get to/from US 29 North...but NCDOT is asserting that it will help congestion on I-40 and I just don't see that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 07, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Agree it'll be easier to get to/from US 29 North...but NCDOT is asserting that it will help congestion on I-40 and I just don't see that.

Me either. My guess is that NCDOT is counting on the fact the northern half will have a single continous interstate designation (I-73/I-785 nothwithstanding) while the southern half is made up of two separate interstates. That's the only explanation I can think of.

I've always believed that I-85 should've been left on it's old routing through Greensboro and the entire loop signed as I-840 (again, I-73/I-785 overlaps notwithstanding).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 07, 2017, 12:17:32 PM
Agree it'll be easier to get to/from US 29 North...but NCDOT is asserting that it will help congestion on I-40 and I just don't see that.
Me either. My guess is that NCDOT is counting on the fact the northern half will have a single continous interstate designation (I-73/I-785 nothwithstanding) while the southern half is made up of two separate interstates. That's the only explanation I can think of.
I've always believed that I-85 should've been left on it's old routing through Greensboro and the entire loop signed as I-840 (again, I-73/I-785 overlaps notwithstanding).

Unless the southern section of the loop has congestion, the northern section would not be a logical alternative for I-40 as it is substantial longer in distance.   The southern section of the loop between I-40 east and west is 8 lanes for about half of the distance and is 6 lanes for the rest... a lot of capacity there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 07, 2017, 12:23:51 PM
NC is just hog wild with road building. Doesn't anyone appreciate rural roads or driving through town?

Well at least NC is different from Florida where every new road is a toll road!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 07, 2017, 01:16:39 PM
Agree it'll be easier to get to/from US 29 North...but NCDOT is asserting that it will help congestion on I-40 and I just don't see that.


I disagree. I have been living in Greensboro for more than 3/4 of my life, I do know that once the entire I-840 loop opens in a few years, it will eventually help with congestion on I-40 as soon as the drivers are getting used to it. The northern loop may be 21 miles from the west end (I-40/I-73) to the east end (I-40/I-85), it will be very useful when they plan on fixing the section of I-40 through the Death Valley in a couple of years and for those who lives in northern Guilford County. I-73/I-85 Southern loop is the better bypass for now, but it does get crowded sometimes.

Already drove on I-785 South from US 29 to I-40/85 this morning, and  it only took me 7-8 minutes to get there. Yes, it is useful/easier to get to/from US 29 North.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 07, 2017, 02:20:17 PM
Well at least NC is different from Florida where every new road is a toll road!
Those tolls on SR 9B and the US 301 Starke bypass really suck. And don't get me started on US 19 in Clearwater. Damn.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 07, 2017, 04:37:48 PM
I-73 along US 220 up to NC 68 is fully open by now, right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on December 07, 2017, 05:26:32 PM
I-73 along US 220 up to NC 68 is fully open by now, right?
It's open but still being upgraded.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 07, 2017, 06:15:56 PM
Agree it'll be easier to get to/from US 29 North...but NCDOT is asserting that it will help congestion on I-40 and I just don't see that.

Me either. My guess is that NCDOT is counting on the fact the northern half will have a single continous interstate designation (I-73/I-785 nothwithstanding) while the southern half is made up of two separate interstates. That's the only explanation I can think of.

I've always believed that I-85 should've been left on it's old routing through Greensboro and the entire loop signed as I-840 (again, I-73/I-785 overlaps notwithstanding).
I think I have to disagree with you on that: it was too important to get the I-85 through traffic out of Death Valley.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on December 08, 2017, 02:16:13 PM
NC is just hog wild with road building. Doesn't anyone appreciate rural roads or driving through town?



(a) apparently not enough to make a difference; (b) your friendly local state delegate/representative/senator can't point to the status quo as a reason for their re-election. 

Or the more accurate c - counties like here in Wake that sees a net migration of 40 new residents a day.

http://www.wakegov.com/planning/peopleandplaces/Pages/default.aspx (http://www.wakegov.com/planning/peopleandplaces/Pages/default.aspx)




Yep. My middle son is now a Wake County resident, after spending his entire life down on the coast. It's where the good IT jobs are.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 08, 2017, 02:55:34 PM
I-73 along US 220 up to NC 68 is fully open by now, right?

Yes, the road is technically already 4-laned, but there are still some work to be done before I-73 can be fully signed up to NC 68.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 08, 2017, 06:02:23 PM
I-73 along US 220 up to NC 68 is fully open by now, right?

Yes, the road is technically already 4-laned, but there are still some work to be done before I-73 can be fully signed up to NC 68.
NCDOT says the extension of I-73 along the upgraded US 220 should be completed by the end of December.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 08, 2017, 08:11:08 PM
Is it totally free-flowing or are there still temporary signals?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 08, 2017, 11:52:40 PM
Is it totally free-flowing or are there still temporary signals?
It's free flowing, the last interchange to open was at NC 65, after which the temporary traffic signals were removed. I have some photos taken after all the exits were opened here:
http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg2.html#photos (http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg2.html#photos)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on December 12, 2017, 01:32:58 PM
http://www.charlottestories.com/ncdot-just-approved-new-bridge-gaston-county/

NCDOT has approved a new bridge across the Catawba River for US 74. The bridge has a pretty interesting history behind it, which is explained in the article. It was part of the first four lane highway in North Carolina.

A lot of older bridges in North Carolina and the South have a similar design to them with the guardrails and pavement. A lot of them have grass growing in them, such as the US 52 one across the Rocky River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2017, 05:21:12 PM
http://www.charlottestories.com/ncdot-just-approved-new-bridge-gaston-county/

NCDOT has approved a new bridge across the Catawba River for US 74. The bridge has a pretty interesting history behind it, which is explained in the article. It was part of the first four lane highway in North Carolina.

A lot of older bridges in North Carolina and the South have a similar design to them with the guardrails and pavement. A lot of them have grass growing in them, such as the US 52 one across the Rocky River.
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: adventurernumber1 on December 12, 2017, 05:24:51 PM
http://www.charlottestories.com/ncdot-just-approved-new-bridge-gaston-county/

NCDOT has approved a new bridge across the Catawba River for US 74. The bridge has a pretty interesting history behind it, which is explained in the article. It was part of the first four lane highway in North Carolina.

A lot of older bridges in North Carolina and the South have a similar design to them with the guardrails and pavement. A lot of them have grass growing in them, such as the US 52 one across the Rocky River.

Wow, the US 52 bridge over the Rocky River and the US 74 bridge over the Catawba River are both beautiful and neat. I love these old bridges that have this design. They can indeed tell a story and some history, even if they have a little grass growing along them.


It's very interesting that, according to the article, this road was at one time called “The South’s finest highway.”

Quote from: excerpt from the article:
When Wilkinson Blvd first opened in 1926, it became the first four-lane paved highway in North Carolina’s history. It was so impressive at the time that it was given the nickname “The South’s finest highway.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on December 12, 2017, 05:59:37 PM
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Seeing that made me wonder if that bridge has a interesting sub structure like this bridge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_at_Conococheague_Creek_MD1.jpg

But it doesn't: (There's an image of the bridge on this page.)
http://epaper.gastongazette.com/Olive/ODN/GastonGazette/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TGG%2F2017%2F02%2F19&entity=Ar02302&sk=7B69E6FD
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on December 12, 2017, 07:06:44 PM
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Seeing that made me wonder if that bridge has a interesting sub structure like this bridge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_at_Conococheague_Creek_MD1.jpg

But it doesn't: (There's an image of the bridge on this page.)
http://epaper.gastongazette.com/Olive/ODN/GastonGazette/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TGG%2F2017%2F02%2F19&entity=Ar02302&sk=7B69E6FD
The Wil-Cox bridge over the yadkin north of Spencer is a very cool arched bridge from the 20s like that one in Maryland you linked, but quite a bit longer. Wil-Cox was recently refurbished to repair cracking and spelling concrete and preserved as a pedestrian facility connecting Rowan and Davidson counties.

LGL33L

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on December 13, 2017, 02:44:20 AM
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Seeing that made me wonder if that bridge has a interesting sub structure like this bridge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_at_Conococheague_Creek_MD1.jpg

But it doesn't: (There's an image of the bridge on this page.)
http://epaper.gastongazette.com/Olive/ODN/GastonGazette/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TGG%2F2017%2F02%2F19&entity=Ar02302&sk=7B69E6FD

It doesn't have a substructure like that, but there is a bridge in the same region of NC that does.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg/319px-James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg)

It's the James B. Garrison bridge in the Uwharrie Mountains.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 13, 2017, 06:39:17 AM
There is also the 1927 Green River bridge, now closed but still standing along US 176:

https://www.ncdot.gov/_graphics/site_graphics/projects_ncbridges_hb_historical_reinforced01.jpg

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 13, 2017, 10:00:06 AM
http://www.charlottestories.com/ncdot-just-approved-new-bridge-gaston-county/

NCDOT has approved a new bridge across the Catawba River for US 74. The bridge has a pretty interesting history behind it, which is explained in the article. It was part of the first four lane highway in North Carolina.

A lot of older bridges in North Carolina and the South have a similar design to them with the guardrails and pavement. A lot of them have grass growing in them, such as the US 52 one across the Rocky River.

The article has some incorrect information about the Sloans Ferry Bridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloans_Ferry_Bridge), the most glaring is the date of the bridge, which was opened in 1933; the article implies that when Wilkinson Boulevard opened in 1926, so did the bridge, which is false.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on December 13, 2017, 06:38:05 PM
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Seeing that made me wonder if that bridge has a interesting sub structure like this bridge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_at_Conococheague_Creek_MD1.jpg

But it doesn't: (There's an image of the bridge on this page.)
http://epaper.gastongazette.com/Olive/ODN/GastonGazette/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TGG%2F2017%2F02%2F19&entity=Ar02302&sk=7B69E6FD

It doesn't have a substructure like that, but there is a bridge in the same region of NC that does.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg/319px-James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg)

It's the James B. Garrison bridge in the Uwharrie Mountains.

Question: what river does the Garrison bridge cross, and what highway occupies the bridge?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 13, 2017, 06:51:09 PM
Street view of the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/h5KLFpJr6my
Seeing that made me wonder if that bridge has a interesting sub structure like this bridge:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_40_at_Conococheague_Creek_MD1.jpg

But it doesn't: (There's an image of the bridge on this page.)
http://epaper.gastongazette.com/Olive/ODN/GastonGazette/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TGG%2F2017%2F02%2F19&entity=Ar02302&sk=7B69E6FD

It doesn't have a substructure like that, but there is a bridge in the same region of NC that does.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg/319px-James_B._Garrison_Bridge.jpg)

It's the James B. Garrison bridge in the Uwharrie Mountains.

Question: what river does the Garrison bridge cross, and what highway occupies the bridge?


NC Highway 24 and 27 between Troy and Albermarle, and it crosses the Pee Dee River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on December 13, 2017, 07:01:28 PM
Thanks!  I keep forgetting that that area east of I-85 is still within the Piedmont region and has some significant altitude variations.  That is a pretty substantial bridge!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 13, 2017, 07:21:14 PM
Thanks!  I keep forgetting that that area east of I-85 is still within the Piedmont region and has some significant altitude variations.  That is a pretty substantial bridge!

More commonly known as the swift island bridge.

http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2016/07/swift-island-bridge-stanlymontgomery.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 13, 2017, 10:26:31 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to mill and resurface US-70 Business in Johnston County from the Wake County line to US-70 (Clayton Bypass).

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14638 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14638)

Quote
A smoother — and safer — ride awaits people who use an eight-mile section of U.S. 70 Business in Johnston County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $6.6 million contract to The Lane Construction Corp. of Cheshire, Connecticut, to mill out the old asphalt and resurface the business highway between the Wake County line and U.S. 70 Bypass south of. To improve safety and traffic flow through the intersections, the contractor also will reconfigure several median openings between Shotwell Road and N.C. 42 in Clayton. The new traffic pattern will direct left turns from the highway onto the side roads; motorists on those side streets will turn right and make a U-turn, if they wish to go in the opposite direction.

Additionally, the contractor will repave the U.S. 70 Business westbound ramp at the U.S. 70 Bypass, as well as sections of Barbour and Hamby streets near U.S. 70 in Clayton.

Weather depending, the contractor may start work after Jan. 2, with the project expected to be substantially complete by November 2018. Landscaping work can continue through May 2019.

This was one of nine road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $275.3 million, about $12.7 million under engineer estimates.

I have had difficulty finding the list of these projects.  Is there a link?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 14, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
NCDOT is holding a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the final section of the Wilmington Bypass (I-140) tomorrow, but it won't open to traffic until next week.

http://m.wect.com/story/37059262/ribbon-cutting-ceremony-for-i-140-wilmington-bypass-set-for-friday (http://m.wect.com/story/37059262/ribbon-cutting-ceremony-for-i-140-wilmington-bypass-set-for-friday)

Quote
The NC Department of Transportation will hold a ribbon-cutting ceremony Friday at 11 a.m. to unveil the final section of the I-140 Wilmington Bypass.

Following the ceremony, the road may not be open to traffic due to wet weather from the previous week delaying construction work, according to NCDOT officials.

Crews are still working on sign installation, pavement markings and final concrete work before the new section of the bypass can be opened to motorists.

The road will likely open to drivers next week, however, lane closures will be necessary until early spring so crews can perform final touches on the bypass.

...and in related Wilmington news, NCDOT has awarded a contract to extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to US-17.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 14, 2017, 06:44:47 PM
...and in related Wilmington news, NCDOT has awarded a contract to extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to US-17.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light)
This project least into the proposed Hampstead Bypass;
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 18, 2017, 04:42:38 PM
Drove NC 16 from 485 to 40 yesterday.  Work to widen n the remaining 2 Lane sections are underway on the entire remaining 2 Lane part, all clearing at this point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on December 18, 2017, 04:59:15 PM
Drove NC 16 from 485 to 40 yesterday.  Work to widen n the remaining 2 Lane sections are underway on the entire remaining 2 Lane part, all clearing at this point.

That will be very nice once it is completed. I frequent that stretch of 16. Im wondering if they will keep the same U-turn based design that occurs on the existing 4-lane segment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2017, 05:00:52 AM
Triangle Expressway tolls to increase, beginning January 1.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14699 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14699)

Quote
A slight increase in the toll rate for the Triangle Expressway will take effect Monday, Jan. 1, as required by the bond covenant created for the funding of the highway. In 2008, the N.C. Turnpike Authority Board adopted a schedule of annual toll rate increases based on the financing requirements of the Triangle Expressway project, which set an average 3.5 percent increase for 2018.

For NC Quick Pass customers traveling the 17.4 miles on the Triangle Expressway between N.C. 147 at I-40 and the N.C. 55 Bypass, the cost will increase 12 cents to $3.25. For bill-by-mail customers, the cost will go up 16 cents to $4.97.

Revenue raised through the tolling process is used to help pay off the bonds sold to fund the $1 billion highway, as well as overall maintenance including road repairs, signs, mowing and winter weather preparation and response.

Plans and work are currently underway for upgrades to the Triangle Expressway. A new interchange at Morrisville Parkway in western Cary is being designed, and is scheduled to be built in time to open to traffic in late 2019.

In August, NC Quick Pass started offering free NC Quick Pass transponders and 60 percent off NC Quick Pass E-ZPass compatible transponders ($7.40 + tax). Motorists who use a Quick Pass transponder on the Triangle Expressway have the largest coverage area of toll program interoperability in the nation. The NC Quick Pass is interoperable with toll roads and bridges that accept Florida’s Sun Pass and Georgia’s Peach Pass.

The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass compatible transponder can also be used on dozens of toll highways and bridges across 15 additional mid-Atlantic, northeastern and midwestern states served by E-ZPass, including: Delaware; Illinois; Indiana; Kentucky; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New York; Ohio; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Virginia; and West Virginia.

For NC Quick Pass information, including payment and purchase options, call 1-877-7MY-PASS (1-877-769-7277) or visit the NC Quick Pass website.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Looks like some sign changes are coming to Greensboro. The Piedmont Triad International Airport is no more. It will now be known as Central North Carolina International Airport.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962 (http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962)

Quote
GREENSBORO, N.C. — Piedmont Triad International Airport will be changing its name. The Airport Authority voted Tuesday to rename the airport Central North Carolina International Airport.

“Changing the name of the airport is a big step. We do not take that lightly,”  said Airport Authority Chairman Steve Showfety. “But it’s an important step. We need a brand that is recognized around the world, because we are competing around the world.”

It's all part of rebranding the airport in an effort to make it more competitive.

"When I talk to people across the country they don't know what the 'Piedmont Triad' is," said Greensboro Mayor Nancy Vaughan. "This will be much more self-explanatory."

The airport authority and city leaders hope the new name will help with economic development in the area.

"Here at the airport we have almost 1,000 acres that can be developed around the airport. So as we're working to attract companies to this region, I think this name will help them understand where they are coming to or where they could be looking for new opportunities," said Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines.

The authority has updated airport runways in recent years and added new restaurants in the terminals.

The board has also discussed a terminal makeover and started interviewing architects for the project.

According to the airport's website, the number of passengers going through the airport is up from last year.

As of October, 727,677 passengers had flown at the airport. In October of 2016, 705,343 passengers had flown so far that year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on December 20, 2017, 04:16:52 PM
Looks like some sign changes are coming to Greensboro. The Piedmont Triad International Airport is no more. It will now be known as Central North Carolina International Airport.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962 (http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962)

Quote
snip

Just name is Greensboro, jeez.  If you have to specify that much where you're located, noone wants to go there anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 21, 2017, 05:47:50 PM
...and in related Wilmington news, NCDOT has awarded a contract to extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to US-17.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light)

More on this:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14707 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14707)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $95 million contract to extend Military Cutoff Road to U.S. 17 in Wilmington.

The contract, awarded to Balfour Infrastructure Inc. of Wilmington, includes extending Military Cutoff Road by four miles from Market Street to U.S. 17. The project includes grading, paving, drainage improvements, sound walls, bridges and culverts north of Market Street. The contractor also will build interchanges where the road now meets Market Street and at the new intersection at U.S. 17.

Once completed in 2022, the Military Cutoff Extension will provide greater connectivity to Market Street and improve access to Ogden, Wrightsville Beach, Mayfaire and surrounding areas.

To accommodate the new interchange, Market Street will be widened between Gordon Road and Middle Sound Loop Road. The improvements to Market Street include an updated drainage system; a concrete median to reduce crashes and improve traffic flow; upgraded drainage to remove water from the road and new on and off ramps.

The relocation of utility lines on Market Street, as part of the pre-construction phase began in summer of 2017. Construction is scheduled to begin as soon as Jan. 2018, and is expected to be completed by spring 2022. Some lane closures will be needed but no detours are proposed at this time.

This was one of nine road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $275.3 million, about $12.7 million under engineer estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 21, 2017, 06:29:43 PM
Looks like some sign changes are coming to Greensboro. The Piedmont Triad International Airport is no more. It will now be known as Central North Carolina International Airport.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962 (http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962)

Quote
snip

Just name is Greensboro, jeez.  If you have to specify that much where you're located, noone wants to go there anyway.

As a Triangle resident, it doesn't matter to me what they call it. But I am surprised. "Piedmont Triad" is a brand name for the metropolitan area and a lot of effort and resources went into establishing that name. Why throw it away for a name that's more vague?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 21, 2017, 07:45:17 PM
Looks like some sign changes are coming to Greensboro. The Piedmont Triad International Airport is no more. It will now be known as Central North Carolina International Airport.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962 (http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962)

Quote
snip

Just name is Greensboro, jeez.  If you have to specify that much where you're located, noone wants to go there anyway.

As a Triangle resident, it doesn't matter to me what they call it. But I am surprised. "Piedmont Triad" is a brand name for the metropolitan area and a lot of effort and resources went into establishing that name. Why throw it away for a name that's more vague?

Sheer stupidity and I bet they'll end up regretting it later. The locals seem opposed to the change. There is a thread covering the name change on City-Data forum. Only one poster in that thread so far supports the change. The conversation is worth a read.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/greensboro-winston-salem-high-point/2861932-pti-airport-renamed.html (http://www.city-data.com/forum/greensboro-winston-salem-high-point/2861932-pti-airport-renamed.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 21, 2017, 11:09:32 PM
...and in related Wilmington news, NCDOT has awarded a contract to extend Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to US-17.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171214/military-cutoff-extension-finally-gets-green-light)

More on this:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14707 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14707)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $95 million contract to extend Military Cutoff Road to U.S. 17 in Wilmington.

The contract, awarded to Balfour Infrastructure Inc. of Wilmington, includes extending Military Cutoff Road by four miles from Market Street to U.S. 17. The project includes grading, paving, drainage improvements, sound walls, bridges and culverts north of Market Street. The contractor also will build interchanges where the road now meets Market Street and at the new intersection at U.S. 17.

Once completed in 2022, the Military Cutoff Extension will provide greater connectivity to Market Street and improve access to Ogden, Wrightsville Beach, Mayfaire and surrounding areas.

To accommodate the new interchange, Market Street will be widened between Gordon Road and Middle Sound Loop Road. The improvements to Market Street include an updated drainage system; a concrete median to reduce crashes and improve traffic flow; upgraded drainage to remove water from the road and new on and off ramps.

The relocation of utility lines on Market Street, as part of the pre-construction phase began in summer of 2017. Construction is scheduled to begin as soon as Jan. 2018, and is expected to be completed by spring 2022. Some lane closures will be needed but no detours are proposed at this time.

This was one of nine road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $275.3 million, about $12.7 million under engineer estimates.
You would think NCDOT would know that the Wilmington Bypass is no longer officially US 17, especially since they did not sign it along the new section of I-140 that opened on Tuesday. To add to the confusion the Extension itself will  eventually be signed US 17 when construction extends it northward as part of the Hampstead Bypass project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 22, 2017, 11:13:40 AM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of NC-540 from NC-55 to I-87/I-540 in Knightdale has been signed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711)

Quote
The N.C. Turnpike Authority, the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have signed the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project known as Complete 540. This is a key step toward constructing the final section of the Triangle Expressway from the N.C. 55 Bypass in Apex to U.S. 64/U.S. 264 in Knightdale.

Originally, the Turnpike Authority had anticipated having the document signed by the Federal Highway Administration in mid-2018.

“We know how important this project is to the communities involved and we are excited to have reached this major milestone in an accelerated and responsible manner,”  said NCTA executive director Beau Memory. “While this is not the final step, it is a critical point in moving this project to construction.”

Next Steps

The FEIS document and updated information will be posted later today on the Complete 540 website.

The public now has the opportunity to review and comment on the document. For comments to be included as part of the public record for the Final EIS comment period, they must be received by February 1, 2018.

In the coming months, NCTA and NCDOT will then hold a set of public meetings to gather additional input on the design plans. This information will be used in the development of a Record of Decision, which is the final document needed to begin construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 22, 2017, 03:19:00 PM
Looks like some sign changes are coming to Greensboro. The Piedmont Triad International Airport is no more. It will now be known as Central North Carolina International Airport.

http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962 (http://www.wfmynews2.com/mobile/article/news/local/pti-airport-to-be-renamed-central-north-carolina-international-airport/83-500613962)

Quote
snip

Just name is Greensboro, jeez.  If you have to specify that much where you're located, noone wants to go there anyway.

As a Triangle resident, it doesn't matter to me what they call it. But I am surprised. "Piedmont Triad" is a brand name for the metropolitan area and a lot of effort and resources went into establishing that name. Why throw it away for a name that's more vague?

Sheer stupidity and I bet they'll end up regretting it later. The locals seem opposed to the change. There is a thread covering the name change on City-Data forum. Only one poster in that thread so far supports the change. The conversation is worth a read.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/greensboro-winston-salem-high-point/2861932-pti-airport-renamed.html (http://www.city-data.com/forum/greensboro-winston-salem-high-point/2861932-pti-airport-renamed.html)


The proposed name change is dumb. I like PTI Airport better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 22, 2017, 06:20:08 PM
Locals may know it well as PTI/Piedmont Triad/what-have-you, but others out-of-state may not.  Someone from out of state will hear "Piedmont Triad" and likely not have a clue where it is...but hear "Central North Carolina" and they're more likely to at least know where it's generally located.

It's clear to me that it's a marketing plan aimed at attracting those out-of-state dollars.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 22, 2017, 06:27:55 PM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of NC-540 from NC-55 to I-87/I-540 in Knightdale has been signed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711)

Quote
The N.C. Turnpike Authority, the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have signed the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project known as Complete 540. This is a key step toward constructing the final section of the Triangle Expressway from the N.C. 55 Bypass in Apex to U.S. 64/U.S. 264 in Knightdale.

Originally, the Turnpike Authority had anticipated having the document signed by the Federal Highway Administration in mid-2018.

“We know how important this project is to the communities involved and we are excited to have reached this major milestone in an accelerated and responsible manner,”  said NCTA executive director Beau Memory. “While this is not the final step, it is a critical point in moving this project to construction.”

Next Steps

The FEIS document and updated information will be posted later today on the Complete 540 website.

The public now has the opportunity to review and comment on the document. For comments to be included as part of the public record for the Final EIS comment period, they must be received by February 1, 2018.

In the coming months, NCTA and NCDOT will then hold a set of public meetings to gather additional input on the design plans. This information will be used in the development of a Record of Decision, which is the final document needed to begin construction.

Since this is a toll-funded project, the early signing of the EIS might accelerate the start of construction by a similar amount. It's too soon to celebrate, but on TV tonight there was talk of public hearings in the spring: that's eight months early, more or less.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on December 26, 2017, 01:36:59 AM
NC 28 could be closed for months after a recent rock slide.

http://wlos.com/news/local/ncdot-section-of-nc-28-to-close-for-months-after-rockslide

Quote
FONTANA DAM, N.C. (AP) –  More than 2500 dump truck loads of dirt, rocks and debris have fallen on a highway in the North Carolina mountains.

The state Department of Transportation said it will likely be the end of February before engineers can reopen NC-28 in Graham County west of the town of Fontana Dam.

The DOT will spend $1.3 million to remove the debris and stabilize the mountain so another rockslide won't happen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on December 26, 2017, 09:27:33 AM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of NC-540 from NC-55 to I-87/I-540 in Knightdale has been signed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711)

Quote
The N.C. Turnpike Authority, the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have signed the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project known as Complete 540. This is a key step toward constructing the final section of the Triangle Expressway from the N.C. 55 Bypass in Apex to U.S. 64/U.S. 264 in Knightdale.

Originally, the Turnpike Authority had anticipated having the document signed by the Federal Highway Administration in mid-2018.

“We know how important this project is to the communities involved and we are excited to have reached this major milestone in an accelerated and responsible manner,” said NCTA executive director Beau Memory. “While this is not the final step, it is a critical point in moving this project to construction.”

Next Steps

The FEIS document and updated information will be posted later today on the Complete 540 website.

The public now has the opportunity to review and comment on the document. For comments to be included as part of the public record for the Final EIS comment period, they must be received by February 1, 2018.

In the coming months, NCTA and NCDOT will then hold a set of public meetings to gather additional input on the design plans. This information will be used in the development of a Record of Decision, which is the final document needed to begin construction.

Since this is a toll-funded project, the early signing of the EIS might accelerate the start of construction by a similar amount. It's too soon to celebrate, but on TV tonight there was talk of public hearings in the spring: that's eight months early, more or less.
While this is certainly welcome news for those who want a complete outer loop around Raleigh, maybe it could revive talks of an eventual I-640/NC 640 application, like it should've happened in the first place. I-185 and I-195 were rejected for I-285 and I-295, respectively, so it's surprising that they got away with the 540s here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 26, 2017, 12:55:28 PM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the extension of NC-540 from NC-55 to I-87/I-540 in Knightdale has been signed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14711)

Quote
The N.C. Turnpike Authority, the N.C. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have signed the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project known as Complete 540. This is a key step toward constructing the final section of the Triangle Expressway from the N.C. 55 Bypass in Apex to U.S. 64/U.S. 264 in Knightdale.

Originally, the Turnpike Authority had anticipated having the document signed by the Federal Highway Administration in mid-2018.

“We know how important this project is to the communities involved and we are excited to have reached this major milestone in an accelerated and responsible manner,” said NCTA executive director Beau Memory. “While this is not the final step, it is a critical point in moving this project to construction.”

Next Steps

The FEIS document and updated information will be posted later today on the Complete 540 website.

The public now has the opportunity to review and comment on the document. For comments to be included as part of the public record for the Final EIS comment period, they must be received by February 1, 2018.

In the coming months, NCTA and NCDOT will then hold a set of public meetings to gather additional input on the design plans. This information will be used in the development of a Record of Decision, which is the final document needed to begin construction.

Since this is a toll-funded project, the early signing of the EIS might accelerate the start of construction by a similar amount. It's too soon to celebrate, but on TV tonight there was talk of public hearings in the spring: that's eight months early, more or less.
While this is certainly welcome news for those who want a complete outer loop around Raleigh, maybe it could revive talks of an eventual I-640/NC 640 application, like it should've happened in the first place. I-185 and I-195 were rejected for I-285 and I-295, respectively, so it's surprising that they got away with the 540s here.
I think its too late to change numbers for the Outer Loop, its been 540 for so long that changing it would cause more confusion than anything else. That being said, I advocated for a long time the use of both numbers to help differentiate the free from the toll routes. Designating the free route as I-640, while keeping the NC 540 designation for the Triangle Expressway would provide 2 distinct differences to help drivers tell the routes apart. Looks like just the adding of toll banners to NC 540 signage though will have to be adequate for drivers who can't tell the difference between the routes marked by state or interstate shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on December 26, 2017, 04:22:16 PM
I think its too late to change numbers for the Outer Loop, its been 540 for so long that changing it would cause more confusion than anything else. That being said, I advocated for a long time the use of both numbers to help differentiate the free from the toll routes. Designating the free route as I-640, while keeping the NC 540 designation for the Triangle Expressway would provide 2 distinct differences to help drivers tell the routes apart. Looks like just the adding of toll banners to NC 540 signage though will have to be adequate for drivers who can't tell the difference between the routes marked by state or interstate shields.

That is one of the better ideas regarding the loop numbering.  However, given NCDOT's spotty (and I'm being generous here!) record regarding assignation of Interstate numbers, it'll be an idea that won't see the light of day. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 26, 2017, 06:37:32 PM
I think its too late to change numbers for the Outer Loop, its been 540 for so long that changing it would cause more confusion than anything else. That being said, I advocated for a long time the use of both numbers to help differentiate the free from the toll routes. Designating the free route as I-640, while keeping the NC 540 designation for the Triangle Expressway would provide 2 distinct differences to help drivers tell the routes apart. Looks like just the adding of toll banners to NC 540 signage though will have to be adequate for drivers who can't tell the difference between the routes marked by state or interstate shields.

That is one of the better ideas regarding the loop numbering.  However, given NCDOT's spotty (and I'm being generous here!) record regarding assignation of Interstate numbers, it'll be an idea that won't see the light of day.

There's an assumption by some forum users that NC wants to put interstate shields on every road that could possibly qualify for them, but that is not actually the case. In Raleigh, the public distinguishes between "I-540," which is the beltway on the north, and "Toll 540," which is the developing beltway on the south. IMHO this is a stable situation not likely to change when Toll 540 is completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 02, 2018, 11:08:06 AM
A bit late on this, but it hasn't been posted here (At least I think):

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us64improvements/

U.S. 64 in the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is expected to undergo improvements, and the swing bridge across the Alligator River may be replaced. It was deemed structurally deficient and has a posted weight limit. It was closed earlier in December for repairs, which created a lengthy detour. U.S. 64 also may become a four lane divided highway.

Quote from: NCDOT
The N.C. Department of Transportation proposes widening a 27.3-mile segment of U.S. 64 — from Columbia in Tyrrell County to U.S. 264 near Manns Harbor in Dare County — and to replace the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge across the Alligator River in Dare County, which is nearing the end of its service life.

The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge has been deemed structurally deficient, meaning the bridge is still safe to use but has a posted weight limit for vehicles.

As a primary evacuation route for the Outer Banks and northeastern North Carolina, work on this stretch of U.S. 64 would help improve emergency evacuation times.

This article from 2015 explains some of the drawbacks to an expansion of Highway 64.

https://www.coastalreview.org/2015/02/plans-u-s-64-hold/

Quote
In fact, until about 1½ years ago, residents had fought the initial proposal that had the highway cutting right through their community, taking out 12 homes, churches and historic cemeteries and the 1936 fire tower.

Environmental groups, including the N.C. Coastal Federation, question the need for the project, citing environmental damage to the refuge and overall lack of traffic on the existing two-lane highway. In response, the state said that U.S. 64 is important as a hurricane evacuation route, and that the bridge over Alligator River is overdue for replacement.

Aaand, additionally, here is a PDF I found.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us64improvements/download/PreferredAltMapsTypicalSections.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 02, 2018, 06:30:49 PM
A bit late on this, but it hasn't been posted here (At least I think):

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us64improvements/

U.S. 64 in the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula is expected to undergo improvements, and the swing bridge across the Alligator River may be replaced. It was deemed structurally deficient and has a posted weight limit. It was closed earlier in December for repairs, which created a lengthy detour. U.S. 64 also may become a four lane divided highway.

Quote from: NCDOT
The N.C. Department of Transportation proposes widening a 27.3-mile segment of U.S. 64 — from Columbia in Tyrrell County to U.S. 264 near Manns Harbor in Dare County — and to replace the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge across the Alligator River in Dare County, which is nearing the end of its service life.

The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge has been deemed structurally deficient, meaning the bridge is still safe to use but has a posted weight limit for vehicles.

As a primary evacuation route for the Outer Banks and northeastern North Carolina, work on this stretch of U.S. 64 would help improve emergency evacuation times.

This article from 2015 explains some of the drawbacks to an expansion of Highway 64.

https://www.coastalreview.org/2015/02/plans-u-s-64-hold/

Quote
In fact, until about 1½ years ago, residents had fought the initial proposal that had the highway cutting right through their community, taking out 12 homes, churches and historic cemeteries and the 1936 fire tower.

Environmental groups, including the N.C. Coastal Federation, question the need for the project, citing environmental damage to the refuge and overall lack of traffic on the existing two-lane highway. In response, the state said that U.S. 64 is important as a hurricane evacuation route, and that the bridge over Alligator River is overdue for replacement.

I'm 50-50 on widening US 64 to four lanes, but without a doubt the bridge needs to be replaced. It turns 68 years old this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: michealbond on January 03, 2018, 12:24:05 PM
I definitely think it should be widened. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 70 mph interstate level highway, but 64 is traveled pretty heavily in the warmer months. Widening would also assist with hurricane evacuation. The last remaining portion to be widened is roughly 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor. I don't see why you'd leave out the last 30 miles of this road as 2 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 03, 2018, 02:32:46 PM
I definitely think it should be widened. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 70 mph interstate level highway, but 64 is traveled pretty heavily in the warmer months. Widening would also assist with hurricane evacuation. The last remaining portion to be widened is roughly 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor. I don't see why you'd leave out the last 30 miles of this road as 2 lanes.

I agree that a 4-lane expressway would be ideal due to it being a hurricane evacuation route, but that 2-lane section goes through two national wildlife refuges (Pocosin Lakes and Alligator River). Jumping through those hurdles would be very difficult, IMO. The Army Corps of Engineers will need a lot of convincing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 04, 2018, 11:43:12 PM
Going with a narrow median (except for turn lanes) would minimize the amount of wetland needed, and an aggressive wetland mitigation program (i.e. building/replacing more wetland acreage than what is taken out for the project) will probably mollify the ACoE.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 05, 2018, 05:45:05 PM
Two bridges over I-95 in Johnston County are getting replaced.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14727 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14727)

Quote
Crews will be replacing two bridges over Interstate 95 in Johnston County as part of a $53.1 million contract for improving the freeway.

Contract crews for the N.C. Department of Transportation will close the Bizzell Grove Church Road bridge in Micro on Monday, Jan. 8. Then, on Monday, Jan. 22, they are scheduled to close the Lizzie Mill Road bridge north of Exit 98 in Selma. Both bridges are more than 58 years old and, although they have remained safe, they have become functionally obsolete, which means they no longer meet the needs of today’s traffic.

The new bridges, which will open in summer 2019, will be long enough to accommodate plans to widen the interstate to eight lanes, starting in 2026, between mile markers 81 and 71.

When the bridges close, the following detours will be implemented:

For Bizzell Grove Church Road, motorists should use Lowell Mill Road, Micro Road and East Main Street in Micro; and
For Lizzie Mill Road, traffic will take Batten, Campground and Myrtle roads into downtown Selma.
The bridge replacements are part of a contract that NCDOT awarded in November to Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh to resurface I-95 between mile markers 100 and 107. The project includes replacing about 80 sections of concrete below the asphalt surface. The work will continue to require periodic lane closures overnight through next spring.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 01:35:26 AM
The Alligator River bridge on US-64 will be closed for a few days beginning Jan. 10.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14740 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14740)

Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is reminding motorists that the Alligator River Bridge between Tyrrell and Dare counties will be closed to all vehicle traffic and boat navigation from 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 10 through Tuesday, Jan. 16.

The closure will allow crews to perform major renovation work on the bridge’s swing-span drawbridge. Workers will be repairing and replacing electrical and mechanical components located beneath the swing span.

The work is part of an extensive renovation project designed to extend the life of the 58-year-old bridge. The $16.7 million contract was awarded to Flatiron Constructors of Morrisville, NC back in March 2017.

During the closure, NCDOT will have detour signage and variable message signs in place to guide motorists through the following detour routes:

Motorists traveling east from Columbia should use N.C. 94 South to U.S. 264 East to U.S. 64.

Motorists traveling west from Dare County to Columbia should use U.S. 264 West to N.C. 94 North to U.S. 64.

Motorists traveling to the Outer Banks from areas west of Williamston should use U.S. 17 North to U.S. 158 East.

Motorists traveling from the Outer Banks to points west of Williamston should use U.S. 158 West to U.S. 17 South to U.S. 64 West.

The project will require another week-long closure for the bridge in March 2018. The dates for that closure have not been determined at this time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on January 09, 2018, 07:51:38 AM
I definitely think it should be widened. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 70 mph interstate level highway, but 64 is traveled pretty heavily in the warmer months. Widening would also assist with hurricane evacuation. The last remaining portion to be widened is roughly 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor. I don't see why you'd leave out the last 30 miles of this road as 2 lanes.

If nothing else and they want to restrict the cross-section width as much as possible, they could utilize an urban cross-section with a narrow median and curb-and-gutter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 09, 2018, 09:03:21 AM
Two bridges over I-95 in Johnston County are getting replaced.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14727 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14727)
I take it the low bridges of the Dunn region will be next.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 10:45:36 AM
Access improvement coming to Concord Mills.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744)

Quote
Access to Concord Mills Mall will soon improve for visitors, thanks to a $10.2 million contract awarded to Blythe Development Co. of Charlotte.

The contract calls for a two-lane flyover bridge to connect from Interstate 85 at Concord Mils Boulevard to Kings Grant Pavilion, the first main entrance to the mall complex. The bridge will replace the existing left turn lanes at the intersection, improving traffic flow on Concord Mills Boulevard.

Work can begin as early as May 1. The roadway portion of the project should be completed by June 15, 2020, with landscaping work ongoing through the end of the year.

This was one of eight road and bridge projects recently awarded by the department. They were worth about $110.6 million, about $20.2 million under engineer estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on January 09, 2018, 11:49:26 AM
Access improvement coming to Concord Mills.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744)

Haven't been there in forever, but I have to think that will be a big help with traffic coming from I-85.  Image from WBTV article:
(http://wbtv.images.worldnow.com/images/15783451_G.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 09, 2018, 01:52:28 PM
Access improvement coming to Concord Mills.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14744)

Haven't been there in forever, but I have to think that will be a big help with traffic coming from I-85.  Image from WBTV article:


Absolutely. I've been to this mall a few times (the last time was years ago though) and pretty much every time, traffic was abysmal. I don't know if we have any of these left turn flyovers that eliminate left turns in NC, this might be a first for us. No idea though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 09, 2018, 05:48:43 PM
There's a similar setup in the Ballantyne area at Johnston Road/I-485.

https://goo.gl/maps/6uncyXCmwUC2 (https://goo.gl/maps/6uncyXCmwUC2)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 09, 2018, 06:14:45 PM
I was there about 6 weeks ago.  First time there.  Traffic from 85 NB turning left on Concord Mills Blvd had backed into the 85 NB mainline.  They really need a direct interchange into the parking lot from 85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 09, 2018, 07:36:03 PM
There's a similar setup in the Ballantyne area at Johnston Road/I-485.

https://goo.gl/maps/6uncyXCmwUC2 (https://goo.gl/maps/6uncyXCmwUC2)

Hmm, I was thinking more like the ones that lead from an arterial to an arterial, both with no controlled or limited access.

Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7749128,-80.1410157,559a,35y,106.5h/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 10, 2018, 12:13:38 AM
I thought they had plans to convert that interchange to a DDI to help out with traffic on race weekends.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 10, 2018, 10:58:13 AM
Bladen County is pushing for federal funding to widen NC-87 to 4 lanes between Elizabethtown and US-74.

http://www.bladenjournal.com/news/15979/peterson-wants-congressmans-help-with-n-c-87-expansion (http://www.bladenjournal.com/news/15979/peterson-wants-congressmans-help-with-n-c-87-expansion)

Quote
Last week, during the Board of Commissioners’ “matters of interest to commissioners,”  a simple request could have a tremendous, positive affect on Bladen County.

Commissioner Charles Ray Peterson asked County Manager to fashion a letter to U.S. Congressman Robert Pittenger asking that he support federal funding to extend N.C. 87 through the county and link up with U.S. 74.

“Robert Pittenger asked for our support in making U.S. 74 an interstate,”  Peterson said. “I thought, if we are talking about growing Bladen, then we need N.C. 87 to become four lane. So, while it appears he wants us to help, then he needs to help us grow Bladen by four-laning N.C. 87.”

N.C. 87 now runs from the Cumberland County line through Tar Heel, Dublin and Elizabethtown – eanding at the Elizabethtown Industrial Park/Airport, where N.C. 87 meets East Broad Street.

There was a time, Peterson said, that the North Carolina Department of Transportation had money in the budget to finish N.C. 87 to U.S. 74, but it never materialized. He added the county has spoken with Drew Cox, the regional engineer for NCDOT, about extending N.C. 78, but it’s been several years since the conversation had potential.

But now, Peterson said, would be a good time to revive those talks.

“Bladen has so much to offer,”  he added. “We have lots of vacant land on 87 and 211. We have natural gas and a railroad on N.C. 211. We have county water down both highways. We have the river on 87. It will make traveling from Wilmington to any destination better, quicker and easier. Houses will be built. Businesses will be build to support communities and travel.”

Beyond the local potential for housing and business development, a four-lane N.C. 87 to U.S. 74 will have positives beyond Bladen County.

“It will have a great impact on Southeast North Carolina,”  Peterson offered. “If we could get N.C. 87 four-laned all the way to U.S. 74, it would give Bladen a gateway to the ports and other four-lane roads, which would open the doors for economic growth in Bladen.

“I think this would be the shot in the arm we need to grow Bladen,”  he added.

Peterson knows getting the funding for the project is a long-shot, but said it’s worth fighting for.

” At the rate we are going it will never happen,”  he said. “But, If we could get federal support, the state might put it back in the DOT budget. We must continue to keep Bladen opportunities in front of all elected officials and state agencies.

” If we are to grow Bladen we need help from the federal and state government,”  he added. “People in Bladen deserve this opportunity. “
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 10, 2018, 06:34:56 PM
Bladen County is pushing for federal funding to widen NC-87 to 4 lanes between Elizabethtown and US-74.

http://www.bladenjournal.com/news/15979/peterson-wants-congressmans-help-with-n-c-87-expansion (http://www.bladenjournal.com/news/15979/peterson-wants-congressmans-help-with-n-c-87-expansion)

Quote
Last week, during the Board of Commissioners’ “matters of interest to commissioners,”  a simple request could have a tremendous, positive affect on Bladen County.

Commissioner Charles Ray Peterson asked County Manager to fashion a letter to U.S. Congressman Robert Pittenger asking that he support federal funding to extend N.C. 87 through the county and link up with U.S. 74.

“Robert Pittenger asked for our support in making U.S. 74 an interstate,”  Peterson said. “I thought, if we are talking about growing Bladen, then we need N.C. 87 to become four lane. So, while it appears he wants us to help, then he needs to help us grow Bladen by four-laning N.C. 87.”

N.C. 87 now runs from the Cumberland County line through Tar Heel, Dublin and Elizabethtown – eanding at the Elizabethtown Industrial Park/Airport, where N.C. 87 meets East Broad Street.

There was a time, Peterson said, that the North Carolina Department of Transportation had money in the budget to finish N.C. 87 to U.S. 74, but it never materialized. He added the county has spoken with Drew Cox, the regional engineer for NCDOT, about extending N.C. 78, but it’s been several years since the conversation had potential.

But now, Peterson said, would be a good time to revive those talks.

“Bladen has so much to offer,”  he added. “We have lots of vacant land on 87 and 211. We have natural gas and a railroad on N.C. 211. We have county water down both highways. We have the river on 87. It will make traveling from Wilmington to any destination better, quicker and easier. Houses will be built. Businesses will be build to support communities and travel.”

Beyond the local potential for housing and business development, a four-lane N.C. 87 to U.S. 74 will have positives beyond Bladen County.

“It will have a great impact on Southeast North Carolina,”  Peterson offered. “If we could get N.C. 87 four-laned all the way to U.S. 74, it would give Bladen a gateway to the ports and other four-lane roads, which would open the doors for economic growth in Bladen.

“I think this would be the shot in the arm we need to grow Bladen,”  he added.

Peterson knows getting the funding for the project is a long-shot, but said it’s worth fighting for.

” At the rate we are going it will never happen,”  he said. “But, If we could get federal support, the state might put it back in the DOT budget. We must continue to keep Bladen opportunities in front of all elected officials and state agencies.

” If we are to grow Bladen we need help from the federal and state government,”  he added. “People in Bladen deserve this opportunity. “

What am I missing here? NC 87 does not end at Elizabethtown, and it does meet US 74/76 at Delco, 37 miles farther southeast. This route was identified as a "strategic transportation corridor," which means NCDOT isn't opposed to improving it, but it is of course a question of priorities and funding.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: michealbond on January 11, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
Elizabethtown wants NC87 to be 4-laned all the way to US74. Currently NC87 is only 2 lanes from directly south of Elizabethtown down to US74. The 4-laned portion of NC87 does end where the writer incorrectly states NC87 ends in its entirety.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on January 11, 2018, 04:04:08 PM
Give it time and they'll be asking for an Interstate number from Greensboro to Delco.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 12, 2018, 06:13:47 PM
NCDOT is building a new I-26/US-74 interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14511)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is saddling up for serious construction.

The heavy lifting to build a new interchange at Interstate 26 and U.S. 74 in Polk County begins this month with the goal of providing a safer and smoother driving experience for all motorists, including visitors and participants of the 2018 World Equestrian Games.

“This is an important project to the area, one that has been needed for many years,”  Acting Division 14 Engineer Brian Burch said. “We’re happy to get this project started and we’ll be working on an accelerated schedule to complete it prior to the World Games.”

The first phase of construction is to clear the project area in preparation of moving dirt and rocks and building embankments for the new roadway.  A creek channel change and 353-foot long concrete box culvert will be constructed during the early stages.

The new interchange, at a cost of $19 million, will separate through traffic from local traffic and be completed by Aug. 17, 2018, in time for visitors from across the globe to enjoy an event that is comparable to the Olympics.

Vecellio & Grogan, Inc DBA Sharpe Brothers, based in Beckley, W.V., will be creating a direct merge lane from U.S. 74 West to I-26 East, which will eliminate the need for drivers to navigate two roundabouts. It will also build a new ramp from I-26 West to U.S. 74 and it will include two bridges and eight retaining walls.

Multiple operations will be performed at the same time in order to finish the job ahead of the completion date.  There will be times in which work will be performed around the clock utilizing multiple crews.

Lane closures and lane shifts will be in place at various times during construction on both I-26 and U.S. 74. Drivers need to adjust their travel times, be aware in this work zone and obey all posted signs and flagging instructions.

“We are pleased to be improving area transportation in time for the World Games,”  Burch said, “It’s also an improvement that will have a lasting positive impact on residents and visitors for many years to come.”

Hmmmm......wonder if this is the opening salvo regarding the much bandied-about upgrading of US 74 to Interstate standards (and then seeing about getting a I-designation; after all, this is NC!).
I think that the interchange is already interestate standard. It’s only putting in the missing freeway to freeway movements.


iPhone

Can anyone venture a guess as to how/why US 74 east is going to have two exit numbers? The exit will be signed as Exit 66 from I-26 WB, but NCDOT isn't updating the signage on I-26 EB. It will remain as Exit 67. They're also eliminating the right travel lane on US 74 EB to accommodate the new ramp from I-26 WB.

I-4729A Signing Plan (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/09-19-17/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK%20I4729A%20C204039/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20I-4729A%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 12, 2018, 07:01:03 PM
WRAL-TV in Raleigh had a story tonight about two upcoming major projects in the area. These are both Design-Build projects, and NCDOT has started the process of seeking companies that are interested in bidding. Both projects could be under contract by late 2018. They are:

(1) Widen I-40 from 4 lanes to 8 lanes between I-440 and NC 42, including the interchange with US 70/Future I-42. The diamond interchange at NC 42 will be replaced by a DDI.

(2) Widen I-440 from 4 lanes to 6-8 lanes between Wade Avenue and I-40 on the west side of Raleigh. The obsolete interchange with Western Avenue (it includes a nasty merge from the left into SB I-440). will be replaced by a DDI, but I don't know what the decision is on the interchange with Wade Avenue; there were several very different possibilities there at the time of public hearings.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 12, 2018, 07:50:06 PM
A contract has been awarded for the construction of the NC-540/Morrisville Parkway interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14759 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14759)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has awarded a $15.2 million contract to create a new interchange on the Triangle Expressway at Morrisville Parkway between Green Level West Road and N.C. 55 near mile marker 64.

The new project, awarded to Barnhill Contracting Co. of Rocky Mount, can begin as early as January 29. It will extend the parkway to the bridge from west of Highcroft Drive on the east side, and from east to near Mills Park Elementary School. It will also add ramps for the interchange, as well as signs and tolling infrastructure.

Construction would link the two sections of the road that are now separated by the expressway with a four-lane roadway. This added interchange was in the planning stages when the expressway was built, so part of that project was the building of a bridge over the expressway to minimize impacts to motorists during the interchange construction.

The new interchange is expected to be open for traffic in late 2019, with additional vegetation work to go to late March 2020.

The project is being built through a partnership with the Town of Cary, the N.C. Department of Transportation and the N.C. Turnpike Authority. The Town worked with the NCDOT and NCTA on the required designs and environmental studies. The new interchange is expected to improve connectivity in western Cary and help alleviate congestion on nearby roads, as drivers who want to use the Triangle Expressway will not have to travel to the existing interchanges at Green Level West Road and N.C. 55. Traffic along Morrisville Parkway is projected to increase from 11,850 vehicles per day in 2017 to 23,005 vehicles per day in 2037.

The interchange was requested by local transportation planners, and included in the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) Long Range Transportation Plan and will improve mobility for current traffic, as well as for much larger volumes of traffic anticipated as a result of substantial growth/development.

This is the second interchange to be added along North Carolina’s first modern toll road since its final phase opened in 2013. The Morrisville Parkway interchange will provide additional access to the Triangle Expressway, similar to the Veridea Parkway interchange in Holly Springs, which opened to traffic in April 2017.

In other news, an upcoming public meeting will be held concerning two sections of the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting next week regarding two sections of the Shelby Bypass project in Cleveland County.

Section D will extend the bypass from west of N.C. 150 to U.S. 74, west of Long Branch Road. Section E will continue the bypass from U.S. 74 west of Long Branch Road to west of Stony Point Road at U.S. 74 Business in Kings Mountain.

The meeting will be held Thursday, Jan. 18 from 4 to 7 p.m. at Elizabeth Baptist Church, 301 North Post Road in Shelby. Interested citizens may attend the meeting at any time to view maps of the recommended alternatives for both sections and meet project team members, as no formal presentation will be made. Comments can be submitted at the meeting or by phone, mail, or email through Feb. 19, 2018.

For additional information about the proposed project, please contact Jackie McSwain, NCDOT Division 12 Project Engineer at jmcswain@ncdot.gov, (980) 552-4208, or Joe Kelvington, NCDOT Consultant Project Manager at joseph.kevington@stantec.com, or (919) 865-7390.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on January 13, 2018, 03:33:59 AM
(1) Widen I-40 from 4 lanes to 8 lanes between I-440 and NC 42, including the interchange with US 70/Future I-42. The diamond interchange at NC 42 will be replaced by a DDI.

I believe I-40 is currently 6 lanes from I-440 to US 70/Business 70.  Glad to see this widening planned to be executed soon, it's always been busy every time I've gone through there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2018, 06:25:57 PM
(1) Widen I-40 from 4 lanes to 8 lanes between I-440 and NC 42, including the interchange with US 70/Future I-42. The diamond interchange at NC 42 will be replaced by a DDI.

I believe I-40 is currently 6 lanes from I-440 to US 70/Business 70.  Glad to see this widening planned to be executed soon, it's always been busy every time I've gone through there.

That's correct. The 4-lane section from US 70/Business 70 to US 70/Future I-42 is a horrible bottleneck at rush hour and lots of other times as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2018, 06:33:53 PM

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting next week regarding two sections of the Shelby Bypass project in Cleveland County.

Section D will extend the bypass from west of N.C. 150 to U.S. 74, west of Long Branch Road. Section E will continue the bypass from U.S. 74 west of Long Branch Road to west of Stony Point Road at U.S. 74 Business in Kings Mountain.

The meeting will be held Thursday, Jan. 18 from 4 to 7 p.m. at Elizabeth Baptist Church, 301 North Post Road in Shelby. Interested citizens may attend the meeting at any time to view maps of the recommended alternatives for both sections and meet project team members, as no formal presentation will be made. Comments can be submitted at the meeting or by phone, mail, or email through Feb. 19, 2018.

For additional information about the proposed project, please contact Jackie McSwain, NCDOT Division 12 Project Engineer at jmcswain@ncdot.gov, (980) 552-4208, or Joe Kelvington, NCDOT Consultant Project Manager at joseph.kevington@stantec.com, or (919) 865-7390.
[/quote]

These two sections will complete the project. Construction is scheduled for 2021. Here's the site for the project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us74bypass/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on January 16, 2018, 10:50:47 PM
Just got back to Greenville NC from a cruise out of Charleston. 2 things I saw.... Really bad pavement on 95 in SC north of Manning.

Also, why is the interchange between 95 and NC 24 in Fayetteville such a large interchange?  There are never more than a few cars using the exit.  Was something planned, but never built ?
The other exits are much more simple on that stretch of 95
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2018, 02:05:43 AM
Just got back to Greenville NC from a cruise out of Charleston. 2 things I saw.... Really bad pavement on 95 in SC north of Manning.

Also, why is the interchange between 95 and NC 24 in Fayetteville such a large interchange?  There are never more than a few cars using the exit.  Was something planned, but never built ?
The other exits are much more simple on that stretch of 95
 

I-95 is a very old and underpowered freeway within much of NC; it never seems to have garnered as much attention (officially and otherwise) -- although it seems that plans to upgrade the corridor have gotten off the blocks as of late (whether any actual projects have been let is something I'm not personally aware of).  As far as the NC 24 interchange is concerned, you have a good point regarding its seeming overbuilding -- a cloverleaf with C/D lanes in both directions; NC 24 is controlled (not limited) access for about a mile in either direction from I-95 (the first intersection on the east side features an interesting configuration using J-turns).  Whether originally conceived as the main access point to downtown Fayetteville or as a more extensive NC 24 freeway or expressway is something for NC posters to answer a bit more definitively!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on January 17, 2018, 03:28:30 AM
Just got back to Greenville NC from a cruise out of Charleston. 2 things I saw.... Really bad pavement on 95 in SC north of Manning.

Also, why is the interchange between 95 and NC 24 in Fayetteville such a large interchange?  There are never more than a few cars using the exit.  Was something planned, but never built ?
The other exits are much more simple on that stretch of 95
 

I-95 is a very old and underpowered freeway within much of NC; it never seems to have garnered as much attention (officially and otherwise) -- although it seems that plans to upgrade the corridor have gotten off the blocks as of late (whether any actual projects have been let is something I'm not personally aware of).  As far as the NC 24 interchange is concerned, you have a good point regarding its seeming overbuilding -- a cloverleaf with C/D lanes in both directions; NC 24 is controlled (not limited) access for about a mile in either direction from I-95 (the first intersection on the east side features an interesting configuration using J-turns).  Whether originally conceived as the main access point to downtown Fayetteville or as a more extensive NC 24 freeway or expressway is something for NC posters to answer a bit more definitively!



This is not the definitive answer, but I think alot of it has to do with when that section of I-95 was built. IIRC the section east of Fayetteville between the ends of Green 95 was the last portion of I-95 to be completed in NC in the late 70's/early 80's (too lazy to look it up right now) and the two main exits (NC-87 and NC-24) both have the C/D + cloverleaf set up. I can only guess the state was planning for expansion to the east of Fayetteville that never really materialized (?)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2018, 01:25:58 PM
NCDOT has updated the schedule for NC-540's extension to I-40.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14760 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14760)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2018, 05:57:45 PM
In other news, an upcoming public meeting will be held concerning two sections of the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758)

That meeting has been postponed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14766 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14766)

Quote
(Editor's Note: Due to inclement weather, the public meeting scheduled for Thursday Jan. 18 will be postponed. NCDOT will announce a new meeting date when it is scheduled. Below is the original press release from Jan. 12.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 18, 2018, 12:32:31 AM
I thought they had plans to convert that interchange to a DDI to help out with traffic on race weekends.

That would probably be up in Concord, the interchange/intersection here is for Concord Mills, which is just a mall. If a DDI is the case, I don't know much about what's going on up there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 02:20:22 PM
Elizabethtown wants NC87 to be 4-laned all the way to US74. Currently NC87 is only 2 lanes from directly south of Elizabethtown down to US74. The 4-laned portion of NC87 does end where the writer incorrectly states NC87 ends in its entirety.
They will probably ask AASHTO to number that as US 801 or US 3 or US 464.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 02:25:23 PM
Actually I think SR 87 is a perfect candidate to become US 421W.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 18, 2018, 03:00:33 PM
Won't happen.  AASHTO's US highway policy prohibits any new split/suffixed US routes (unless it's an "A" which stands for Alternate) and encourages removal of existing split/suffixed routes.

Same policy also prohibits any new intrastate routes less than 300 miles long.  So unless they figure out a way to logically extend it into South Carolina, they likely won't even bother asking.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 03:07:01 PM
They allowed I-69C, I-69E and I-69W.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 18, 2018, 03:45:08 PM
:banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 04:08:44 PM
Actually if connect VA 87 to NC 87 you could make it US 420.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: lordsutch on January 18, 2018, 04:32:24 PM
They allowed I-69C, I-69E and I-69W.

AASHTO can be overruled by Congress and forced to accept a number that violates their policy–heck, they could call a route "Interstate Avalanchez71" and it'd be up to FHWA, AASHTO, and/or the states to figure out how to sign it. Hence the I-69 RGV suffixes, I-99, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 04:37:22 PM
Tennessee is flush with directional suffixed US highways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 18, 2018, 04:50:54 PM
Tennessee is flush with directional suffixed US highways.

Which preceded AASHTO's "non-suffix" policy, dating from the late 1970's; existing suffixed US routes were permitted to remain (AASHTO had no intention or desire to disrupt regional navigation idioms) -- but no new suffixed numbers could be designated.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 18, 2018, 04:59:37 PM
I know I have seen the threads.  I also see that they approved some weird stuff like US 400, US 412 and US 425.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 18, 2018, 06:07:05 PM
I know I have seen the threads.  I also see that they approved some weird stuff like US 400, US 412 and US 425.

All the latter-day "400" series of numbers seem to be either placeholders for future corridors or, just as likely, "consolation prizes" for not getting an Interstate or other major (and funded) corridor established.  This is particularly applicable to US 400 between Wichita and I-44; back in the late'80's and early '90's interests in that city pushed for a nationwide "I-66" passing through their town; essentially it would have followed the cross-state US 400 alignment.  It's still a high-priority corridor (#3), but the plans have been cut back markedly to a rural arterial with some town bypasses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 21, 2018, 10:14:48 PM
There will be an NCDoT meeting Tuesday night in Marion NC to show plans to widen US 221 Bus from the NC 226 intersection North to Georgia Ave to 3 lanes (continuous center left turn lane) along with curb and gutter and sidewalks. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 21, 2018, 11:26:42 PM
Hey, speaking of US 221, Dana and I were headed to West Jefferson though Wilkesboro and saw the new intersection between US 421 and US 221 at the top of the hill to start the wrong-way multiplex.  Is US 221 being rerouted or is it just an elaborate trumpet intersection?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on January 22, 2018, 09:16:16 AM
Hey, speaking of US 221, Dana and I were headed to West Jefferson though Wilkesboro and saw the new intersection between US 421 and US 221 at the top of the hill to start the wrong-way multiplex.  Is US 221 being rerouted or is it just an elaborate trumpet intersection?
That trumpet is part of the project to widen US 221 to four lanes from US 421 to Jefferson NC.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us221widening/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 23, 2018, 10:53:33 AM
In other news, an upcoming public meeting will be held concerning two sections of the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14758)

That meeting has been postponed.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14766 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14766)

Quote
(Editor's Note: Due to inclement weather, the public meeting scheduled for Thursday Jan. 18 will be postponed. NCDOT will announce a new meeting date when it is scheduled. Below is the original press release from Jan. 12.)

New meeting date has been announced.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14775 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14775)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation will hold a public meeting next month regarding two sections of the Shelby Bypass project in Cleveland County. 

Section D will extend the bypass from west of N.C. 150 to U.S. 74, west of Long Branch Road. Section E will continue the bypass from U.S. 74 west of Long Branch Road to west of Stony Point Road at U.S. 74 Business in Kings Mountain.

The meeting will be held Thursday, Feb. 8 from 4 to 7 p.m. at Elizabeth Baptist Church, 301 North Post Road in Shelby. Interested citizens may attend the meeting at any time to view maps of the recommended alternatives for both sections and meet project team members, as no formal presentation will be made. Comments can be submitted at the meeting or by phone, mail, or email.

For additional information about the proposed project, please contact Jackie McSwain, NCDOT Division 12 Project Engineer at jmcswain@ncdot.gov, (980) 552-4208, or Joe Kelvington, NCDOT Consultant Project Manager at joseph.kevington@stantec.com, or (919)865-7390.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 24, 2018, 02:57:54 PM
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article196102254.html

From News & Observer: NCDOT accused of misleading public about $2.2 billion highway project

Quote
RALEIGH
Opponents of a planned six-lane toll road across southern Wake County say an email exchange between two N.C. Department of Transportation engineers last fall shows the state misled the public about the project’s schedule in an attempt to stymie opposition.

NIMBYs seem to be involved with this one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 25, 2018, 09:59:30 AM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on Jan. 30 to discuss two alternatives for improving the I-40/Airport Boulevard interchange in Morrisville.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14783 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14783)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is planning to improve traffic flow at the Airport Boulevard interchange for Interstate 40 in Morrisville and wants public input on the project.

Two alternatives are under consideration. One is a diverging diamond interchange, which would be among the first of that type in the Triangle. The other is a partial cloverleaf interchange which is similar to what is currently in place. In both cases, the 47-year-old bridge that goes over I-40 would be replaced by a wider structure.

A diverging diamond interchange is intended to improve the flow of a high volume of traffic through an intersection or interchange without needing additional traffic signals or lanes, and it creates easier access for interstates. There are more than a dozen of them already handling traffic around the state with more planned, including on the upcoming I-440 widening project.

The partial cloverleaf alternative would add a loop ramp on the northwest corner of the interchange for drivers on I-40 West who want to go south on the boulevard. The current setup has those motorists using a typical interstate exit ramp, then turning left at a traffic light at the end of the ramp. That often creates a backup down the ramp during commute times.

Construction on whichever alternative is selected could begin in 2019.

A public meeting to present the two alternatives will be held Tuesday, January 30, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the LaQuinta Inn and Suites, 101 Hospitality Court in Morrisville. It is off Airport Boulevard on the south side of the I-40 interchange.

Interested residents can attend the meeting at any time as there will not be a formal presentation, but will offer a chance to review maps of the two proposals and ask questions of NCDOT representatives. Attendees will also be able to submit comments in writing.

Interested parties who can’t attend the meeting can review the maps at the public meetings section of the NCDOT website. They can also give their input on the project through February 14 by contacting NCDOT Project Manager Bob Deaton at rdeaton@ncdot.gov or (919) 707-6017.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 25, 2018, 07:03:57 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on Jan. 30 to discuss two alternatives for improving the I-40/Airport Boulevard interchange in Morrisville.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14783 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14783)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is planning to improve traffic flow at the Airport Boulevard interchange for Interstate 40 in Morrisville and wants public input on the project.

Two alternatives are under consideration. One is a diverging diamond interchange, which would be among the first of that type in the Triangle. The other is a partial cloverleaf interchange which is similar to what is currently in place. In both cases, the 47-year-old bridge that goes over I-40 would be replaced by a wider structure.

A diverging diamond interchange is intended to improve the flow of a high volume of traffic through an intersection or interchange without needing additional traffic signals or lanes, and it creates easier access for interstates. There are more than a dozen of them already handling traffic around the state with more planned, including on the upcoming I-440 widening project.

The partial cloverleaf alternative would add a loop ramp on the northwest corner of the interchange for drivers on I-40 West who want to go south on the boulevard. The current setup has those motorists using a typical interstate exit ramp, then turning left at a traffic light at the end of the ramp. That often creates a backup down the ramp during commute times.

Construction on whichever alternative is selected could begin in 2019.

A public meeting to present the two alternatives will be held Tuesday, January 30, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the LaQuinta Inn and Suites, 101 Hospitality Court in Morrisville. It is off Airport Boulevard on the south side of the I-40 interchange.

Interested residents can attend the meeting at any time as there will not be a formal presentation, but will offer a chance to review maps of the two proposals and ask questions of NCDOT representatives. Attendees will also be able to submit comments in writing.

Interested parties who can’t attend the meeting can review the maps at the public meetings section of the NCDOT website. They can also give their input on the project through February 14 by contacting NCDOT Project Manager Bob Deaton at rdeaton@ncdot.gov or (919) 707-6017.

This improvement is much needed. Interesting that a SPUI is not being considered as a third option.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on January 27, 2018, 10:00:20 PM
Driving back to Greenville from Chapel Hill today I couldn't imagine how confusing the drive would be from the Beltline through Knightdale if it was my first trip to Greenville and my only directions said to exit the Beltline at 87 north.  There are very little signs for 87 and many for 495.  NC should take down all the 495 signs and not halfway sign 87 on sign posts.  If they are not ready to sign it properly then don't sign it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 28, 2018, 12:50:20 PM
Driving back to Greenville from Chapel Hill today I couldn't imagine how confusing the drive would be from the Beltline through Knightdale if it was my first trip to Greenville and my only directions said to exit the Beltline at 87 north.  There are very little signs for 87 and many for 495.  NC should take down all the 495 signs and not halfway sign 87 on sign posts.  If they are not ready to sign it properly then don't sign it.
Agreed that this is confusing. Why the same people who put up the I-87 signs could not take down the I-495 signs at the same time is a good question. NCDOT itself on many of its press releases for Raleigh area projects (as well as on maps for the Compete 540 project) still use and show the I-495 designation. I sent an e-mail regarding this to NCDOT and they thanked me and said they would make revisions to the Complete 540 site hopefully prior to the public meetings in February. Nothing has happened yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 28, 2018, 03:46:34 PM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 28, 2018, 10:10:51 PM
There is updated Google satellite imagery.  Shows advancement of work on the Monroe bypass (but still not the eastern terminus) and NC 16 North of Dallas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2018, 03:50:03 AM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.

Kenly's not even on I-795 -- or old US 117 for that matter (it's on US 301 SW of the 795/264 divergence).  Since the concept of I-795 as a shortcut to Wilmington is a relatively recent occurrence (2016), one would think that Goldsboro would be the longstanding choice as a control city for I-795 south. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 06:57:01 AM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.

Kenly's not even on I-795 -- or old US 117 for that matter (it's on US 301 SW of the 795/264 divergence).  Since the concept of I-795 as a shortcut to Wilmington is a relatively recent occurrence (2016), one would think that Goldsboro would be the longstanding choice as a control city for I-795 south.

Goldsboro is a control city, but Kenly is used as second, which makes zero sense. Wilmington should've been the second.

https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92 (https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 29, 2018, 11:27:53 AM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.

Kenly's not even on I-795 -- or old US 117 for that matter (it's on US 301 SW of the 795/264 divergence).  Since the concept of I-795 as a shortcut to Wilmington is a relatively recent occurrence (2016), one would think that Goldsboro would be the longstanding choice as a control city for I-795 south.

Goldsboro is a control city, but Kenly is used as second, which makes zero sense. Wilmington should've been the second.

https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92 (https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92)


Somebody proabably needs to contact NCDOT because the second control city is an error. However, it might not be since right after the I-795/US 264 split, US 301 is the next exit I-795 meets, and guess what control city is used for it? Kenly. Maybe it is a fastest way to Kenly by just using I-795 to US 301 instead of surface streets?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 12:42:03 PM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.

Kenly's not even on I-795 -- or old US 117 for that matter (it's on US 301 SW of the 795/264 divergence).  Since the concept of I-795 as a shortcut to Wilmington is a relatively recent occurrence (2016), one would think that Goldsboro would be the longstanding choice as a control city for I-795 south.

Goldsboro is a control city, but Kenly is used as second, which makes zero sense. Wilmington should've been the second.

https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92 (https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92)


Somebody proabably needs to contact NCDOT because the second control city is an error. However, it might not be since right after the I-795/US 264 split, US 301 is the next exit I-795 meets, and guess what control city is used for it? Kenly. Maybe it is a fastest way to Kenly by just using I-795 to US 301 instead of surface streets?

The thing is, anybody wanting to go to Kenly from US-264 East would simply hop on I-95 South. I can understand using Kenly as a control city for US-301, but not for I-795 itself. Wilmington isn't used as a control city until you reach the US-70 Bypass interchange just north of Goldsboro. There are also no roadside mileage signs on I-795 indicating how far Goldsboro, Wilson, or Wilmington are.

Kenly has been used as a control city for I-795 South for 10 years. I have a little hope that NCDOT will finally put 2 & 2 together once I-795 connects to I-40 and replace Kenly with Wilmington, but that's wishful thinking on my part...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 29, 2018, 02:14:47 PM
It wouldn't be the first time NCDOT half-assed signed an interstate. When the former US-117 freeway between Goldsboro and Wilson became I-795 in 2007, they only used I-795 trailblazers. The BGS's, exit numbers and mile markers wasn't changed to show I-795 until early 2010. It took a few years before locals stopped calling it "the new 117" and called it I-795.

Hell, the I-795/US-264 concurrency still uses US-264 mile markers to this day and for whatever reason, Kenly is used as a control city for I-795 South at the US-264 split. It should've been Wilmington, given I-795's purpose of being a shortcut there.

Kenly's not even on I-795 -- or old US 117 for that matter (it's on US 301 SW of the 795/264 divergence).  Since the concept of I-795 as a shortcut to Wilmington is a relatively recent occurrence (2016), one would think that Goldsboro would be the longstanding choice as a control city for I-795 south.

Goldsboro is a control city, but Kenly is used as second, which makes zero sense. Wilmington should've been the second.

https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92 (https://goo.gl/maps/Va2mpaSYAU92)


Somebody proabably needs to contact NCDOT because the second control city is an error. However, it might not be since right after the I-795/US 264 split, US 301 is the next exit I-795 meets, and guess what control city is used for it? Kenly. Maybe it is a fastest way to Kenly by just using I-795 to US 301 instead of surface streets?

The thing is, anybody wanting to go to Kenly from US-264 East would simply hop on I-95 South. I can understand using Kenly as a control city for US-301, but not for I-795 itself. Wilmington isn't used as a control city until you reach the US-70 Bypass interchange just north of Goldsboro. There are also no roadside mileage signs on I-795 indicating how far Goldsboro, Wilson, or Wilmington are.

Kenly has been used as a control city for I-795 South for 10 years. I have a little hope that NCDOT will finally put 2 & 2 together once I-795 connects to I-40 and replace Kenly with Wilmington, but that's wishful thinking on my part...


Yeah, I agree. Staying on I-95 is much faster to get to Kenly. I think it is just for local traffic somehow, and they probably will change the control city once I-795 connects with I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2018, 08:53:15 PM
A new rest area is opening on I-77 in Iredell County, just south of Exit 59 on February 1.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on January 30, 2018, 05:42:50 AM
I pass that rest area once in a while and I don't think the accel lanes are long enough for the left entrances to a 70mph highway.  Overly cautious?  Maybe...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2018, 07:51:11 AM
A new rest area is opening on I-77 in Iredell County, just south of Exit 59 on February 1.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803)

Sounded great until I read this part --

"With the opening of this facility, four other rest areas along I-77 will close — two at the Iredell/Yadkin county line, and two north of Mooresville.  Crews will be out on Feb. 1 to cover any remaining signs to these facilities, place barricades at the entrances from I-77, and place portable message signs advertising the closures about a mile before each rest area.  Overhead message signs will also be used on I-77 and I-40 beginning Thursday to encourage motorists to visit the new rest area."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 30, 2018, 12:14:46 PM
A new rest area is opening on I-77 in Iredell County, just south of Exit 59 on February 1.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803)

Sounded great until I read this part --

"With the opening of this facility, four other rest areas along I-77 will close — two at the Iredell/Yadkin county line, and two north of Mooresville.  Crews will be out on Feb. 1 to cover any remaining signs to these facilities, place barricades at the entrances from I-77, and place portable message signs advertising the closures about a mile before each rest area.  Overhead message signs will also be used on I-77 and I-40 beginning Thursday to encourage motorists to visit the new rest area."

This is why I took pictures of the rest areas back in 2016 and loaded them onto WikiCommons:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_77_rest_areas_in_North_Carolina (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_77_rest_areas_in_North_Carolina)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2018, 03:58:40 PM
A new rest area is opening on I-77 in Iredell County, just south of Exit 59 on February 1.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14803)
Sounded great until I read this part --
"With the opening of this facility, four other rest areas along I-77 will close — two at the Iredell/Yadkin county line, and two north of Mooresville.  Crews will be out on Feb. 1 to cover any remaining signs to these facilities, place barricades at the entrances from I-77, and place portable message signs advertising the closures about a mile before each rest area.  Overhead message signs will also be used on I-77 and I-40 beginning Thursday to encourage motorists to visit the new rest area."
This is why I took pictures of the rest areas back in 2016 and loaded them onto WikiCommons:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_77_rest_areas_in_North_Carolina (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_77_rest_areas_in_North_Carolina)

Actually I see on a map that the 4 rest areas are all on a 30-mile section of I-77.  It makes sense to replace the old rest areas with one large new rest area in the median.

I see that the new rest area is accessed by left-hand exits and entrances.  I recall an NCDOT highway engineer in another forum that had conniption fits about left-hand exits and entrances.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 30, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
This story from the News & Observer is a good example on how highway development affects wildlife:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article197189949.html

Quote
New highway will threaten endangered mussels. NC promises $5M to breed them.

RALEIGH -
Before they can build the six-lane Triangle Expressway across southern Wake County, state officials must show that the highway won’t do serious harm to two rare species of mussels that live in streams there.

A lot of the time, we, or at least just I think of wildlife affected by highway development as things like deer and other animals, not inland mussels in creeks. I honestly never even knew this was a thing with the mussels.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on January 30, 2018, 05:16:12 PM
About the new rest area.. this is the first one I've heard about being constructed in the median in a very long time. Matter of fact the last one I know was the ones on I-85 in between those double crossovers southwest of Thomasville, but that's different because that section of highway was newly constructed plus no left hand exits necessary. I'm actually surprised the feds let NCDOT get by with this new one. I thought they frown upon new left hand exits on interstates now or something
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on January 30, 2018, 06:59:58 PM
About the new rest area.. this is the first one I've heard about being constructed in the median in a very long time. Matter of fact the last one I know was the ones on I-85 in between those double crossovers southwest of Thomasville, but that's different because that section of highway was newly constructed plus no left hand exits necessary. I'm actually surprised the feds let NCDOT get by with this new one. I thought they frown upon new left hand exits on interstates now or something

I believe this is the location here, with construction nearly complete --
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9006256,-80.8586975,574m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on January 30, 2018, 10:06:53 PM
Travelling that stretch of 77 often I was rather surprised when I saw the left hand exit and entrances start to go in, but 77 empties out fast as soon as you hit 40 going north. That stretch from 40 to 421 has to be one of the least driven miles of interstate in the state and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon so it doesn't bother me safetywise. One of those cases where the benefits seem to clearly outweigh the risks IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 01, 2018, 08:41:32 AM
It seems as though the interstate was planned and built to have a rest area in that spot. The median has always been very wide there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 02, 2018, 02:52:02 PM
NCOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to US-17 Business between Hertford and Winfall, which includes replacing the Perquimans River bridge. However, construction won't begin until summer 2019.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14817 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14817)

In other news, another contract has been awarded to build a pedestrian tunnel under Trinity Road in Raleigh, linking the parking lots at Carter-Finley Stadium and the state fairgrounds.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 08, 2018, 09:54:23 PM
I had the opportunity to drive through the NE outskirts of Shelby today.  Wanted to note significant construction activity around the NC 150/ NC 180 Intersection for the US 74 Shelby bypass.  Work is for the bridge over NC 150 and a nearby parrell creek to the west.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 09, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
I found a GIS file on NCDOT's website showing future Interstate designations. I guess most of these are already known, but I thought I'd throw it on a map for a good visualization.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_89bee7cc6f_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_83e7a37ab9_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 09, 2018, 05:14:54 PM
I found a GIS file on NCDOT's website showing future Interstate designations. I guess most of these are already known, but I thought I'd throw it on a map for a good visualization.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_89bee7cc6f_b.jpg)
 (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_83e7a37ab9_k.jpg)

Interesting that this doesn't show the portion of I-87 west of I-95; that should have been there on any earlier versions of this as I-495 in any case, so it's likely just a cartographic error.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 09, 2018, 09:21:17 PM
I found a GIS file on NCDOT's website showing future Interstate designations. I guess most of these are already known, but I thought I'd throw it on a map for a good visualization.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_89bee7cc6f_b.jpg)
 (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_83e7a37ab9_k.jpg)

Interesting that this doesn't show the portion of I-87 west of I-95; that should have been there on any earlier versions of this as I-495 in any case, so it's likely just a cartographic error.   

They do partially show it.  Just the segment between I-587 & I-95 is missing.

They are also missing I-840 too (except for what had already been opened prior to mid 2017).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 09, 2018, 10:37:18 PM
Sure makes it obvious how incredibly dumb the planned end of I-74 is...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on February 10, 2018, 02:22:33 AM
Sure makes it obvious how incredibly dumb the planned end of I-74 is...
I agree... 74 is way out of place... It will never be linked to the Western 74. There is a long multiple with 73... Another number for 74 in Southeast NC should be given. .. I say 28 and then go to Charlotte and i26

Z981

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 10, 2018, 05:53:06 AM
I-74 wouldn't be quite so bad if it wasn't for that crooked ass turn to South Carolina. Anybody coming from Rockingham and points west or north would use I-73 to go to Myrtle Beach.

Another thing that stands out in that map is that it confirms what many of us suspected about I-285. It was originally supposed to end at I-40 just south of Winston-Salem, but once it was decided that I-74 become part of the W-S Northern Beltway, there were suspicions that I-285 would be extended north of I-40 through downtown W-S to the beltway.

Of all the future interstates, I-795 and I-42 are the most important right now, IMO. They're both major trucking corridors connected to ports, serve as hurricane evacuation routes, as well as carrying tourist traffic and neither corridor has to rely on cooperation from states like Virginia that have zero interest in new interstates or South Carolina, who wants the feds to pay for everything...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on February 10, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
I found a GIS file on NCDOT's website showing future Interstate designations. I guess most of these are already known, but I thought I'd throw it on a map for a good visualization.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_89bee7cc6f_b.jpg)
 (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_83e7a37ab9_k.jpg)
Other errors in map:
The Winston-Salem North Beltway is not shown at all. Future I-74 should be routed over the Beltway on the east side and Future I-274 on the west side.
The northernmost segment of Future I-26 should be shown as Existing I-26.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on February 10, 2018, 10:52:47 AM
I-74 wouldn't be quite so bad if it wasn't for that crooked ass turn to South Carolina. Anybody coming from Rockingham and points west or north would use I-73 to go to Myrtle Beach.

Another thing that stands out in that map is that it confirms what many of us suspected about I-285. It was originally supposed to end at I-40 just south of Winston-Salem, but once it was decided that I-74 become part of the W-S Northern Beltway, there were suspicions that I-285 would be extended north of I-40 through downtown W-S to the beltway.

Of all the future interstates, I-795 and I-42 are the most important right now, IMO. They're both major trucking corridors connected to ports, serve as hurricane evacuation routes, as well as carrying tourist traffic and neither corridor has to rely on cooperation from states like Virginia that have zero interest in new interstates or South Carolina, who wants the feds to pay for everything...
42 is at least more or less direct route.. 87 is circuitous

Z981

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 10, 2018, 11:31:10 AM
The map also doesn't show Future I-295 around Fayetteville; it just shows Business 95. It doesn't show all of I-140 either.

EDIT: Aren't they also planning on an I-885 for the East End Connector in Durham?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 10, 2018, 04:13:34 PM
EDIT: Aren't they also planning on an I-885 for the East End Connector in Durham?

Yes, but NCDOT hasn't submitted a request to AASHTO or FHWA yet. However, I would be shocked if the request gets denied.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 10, 2018, 04:17:49 PM
Speed enforcement will be picking up in Cleveland, Harnett, Johnston, Sampson, and Randolph counties until June.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14835 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14835)

Also, the Alligator River bridge on US-64 will be closed for a week in March for renovation work.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14831 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14831)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 10, 2018, 06:57:22 PM
This is the signage, as of May 2017, at the WB I-40/85 split east of Greensboro. Too early for I-785 to be mentioned, but that's not my question. My question is, why does the sign over the I-85 lanes say "to NORTH I-73" instead of "to South I-73" or, better, simply "TO I-73"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 10, 2018, 06:58:20 PM
This is the signage, as of May 2017, at the WB I-40/85 split east of Greensboro. Too early for I-785 to be mentioned, but that's not my question. My question is, why does the sign over the I-85 lanes say "to NORTH I-73" instead of "to South I-73" or, better, simply "TO I-73"?
Forgot the link: https://goo.gl/maps/xm7iD6FKam42
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 11, 2018, 12:58:27 PM
This is the signage, as of May 2017, at the WB I-40/85 split east of Greensboro. Too early for I-785 to be mentioned, but that's not my question. My question is, why does the sign over the I-85 lanes say "to NORTH I-73" instead of "to South I-73" or, better, simply "TO I-73"?
Forgot the link: https://goo.gl/maps/xm7iD6FKam42


No idea. It had to be either: an error by NCDOT, or they put it up there to "show" if you want to bypass Greensboro by using the Loop, going south on I-85 and then north on I-73 makes sense, however the directions for all thru traffic to bypass Greensboro were very horrible back then (before they upgraded the signages).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on February 12, 2018, 08:00:50 PM
I read on this forum that when the Greensboro loop is finished and properly signed that Green 85 will disappear.  That makes sense  coming from the east. When approaching the  from the south on I-85, will Green 85 disappear from the Lexington area to Death Valley also?  I'm assuming so. Couldn't Green 85 be made a 3di traveling from the south from where I-85 joins the Loop to I-40 at Death Valley?  I assume it's up to interstate standards... Could be 685?
It may be a bit of Interstate overkill for the Triad though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 12, 2018, 08:31:42 PM
I read on this forum that when the Greensboro loop is finished and properly signed that Green 85 will disappear.  That makes sense  coming from the east. When approaching the  from the south on I-85, will Green 85 disappear from the Lexington area to Death Valley also?  I'm assuming so. Couldn't Green 85 be made a 3di traveling from the south from where I-85 joins the Loop to I-40 at Death Valley?  I assume it's up to interstate standards... Could be 685?
It may be a bit of Interstate overkill for the Triad though.


No, they will only remove the Green 85 routing through Greensboro (making it only US 29/70 going towards I-40 merge). The one that goes through High Point, Thomasville and Lexington (also along US 29/70) will remain Green 85... unless they changed their mind because the southernmost routing of Green 85 that multiplex with US 29/70/52 will be renamed I-285 in the future, so who knows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on February 12, 2018, 09:06:49 PM
I found a GIS file on NCDOT's website showing future Interstate designations. I guess most of these are already known, but I thought I'd throw it on a map for a good visualization.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_89bee7cc6f_b.jpg)
 (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4621/25302797977_83e7a37ab9_k.jpg)
Other errors in map:
The Winston-Salem North Beltway is not shown at all. Future I-74 should be routed over the Beltway on the east side and Future I-274 on the west side.
The northernmost segment of Future I-26 should be shown as Existing I-26.

They also forgot the future interstate designation for US 74 from I-26 at Columbus to I-85 at Kings Mountain.  Was that supposed to be 885 or 226?  Or has that one even been approved by the feds yet, or given a number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on February 12, 2018, 09:24:35 PM
They also forgot the future interstate designation for US 74 from I-26 at Columbus to I-85 at Kings Mountain.  Was that supposed to be 885 or 226?  Or has that one even been approved by the feds yet, or given a number?

Surprisingly NCDOT hasn't applied the corridor to AASHTO for a future interstate designation yet. However, when this does inevitably happen, it will likely be an I-x26.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 13, 2018, 04:23:11 AM
They also forgot the future interstate designation for US 74 from I-26 at Columbus to I-85 at Kings Mountain.  Was that supposed to be 885 or 226?  Or has that one even been approved by the feds yet, or given a number?

Surprisingly NCDOT hasn't applied the corridor to AASHTO for a future interstate designation yet. However, when this does inevitably happen, it will likely be an I-x26.

I still think NCDOT, as per their recent practice, will "shoot for the moon" here and go for a 2di in conjunction with the Charlotte-Rockingham efforts (aka the "Monroe Bypass" tolled facility).  And if they ask for an odd number, someone needs to go to Raleigh and kick some collective ass!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 13, 2018, 07:52:23 AM
They also forgot the future interstate designation for US 74 from I-26 at Columbus to I-85 at Kings Mountain.  Was that supposed to be 885 or 226?  Or has that one even been approved by the feds yet, or given a number?

Surprisingly NCDOT hasn't applied the corridor to AASHTO for a future interstate designation yet. However, when this does inevitably happen, it will likely be an I-x26.

I agree. They're probably waiting until the Shelby Bypass is complete.

Also, it will definitely not be I-885. NCDOT is saving that number for NC-147/East End Connector in Durham.

As for I-685, this is speculation on my part, but I strongly suspect NCDOT is saving that number for US-1 between I-540 and I-85 in Henderson. There are long-term plans to upgrade that stretch to a freeway, though it's only funded as far as Wake Forest. The idea of giving north Raleigh a northerly interstate connection to I-85 would be too much for them to pass up, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 13, 2018, 09:52:59 AM
^ They actually got it funded between 540 and Wake Forest?  Got a source for that?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 13, 2018, 10:55:24 AM
^ They actually got it funded between 540 and Wake Forest?  Got a source for that?

Unless I'm looking at it wrong, there certainly appears to be some funding directed towards it. Go to page 290. Project U-5307.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on February 13, 2018, 11:07:31 AM
^ They actually got it funded between 540 and Wake Forest?  Got a source for that?

Unless I'm looking at it wrong, there certainly appears to be some funding directed towards it. Go to page 290. Project U-5307.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)

I think you're right. I'm not sure what the U stands for in those tables (unfunded??), but there is funding listed for Right-of-way and Construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 13, 2018, 11:15:38 AM
U stands for Utilities

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 13, 2018, 11:36:19 AM
^ They actually got it funded between 540 and Wake Forest?  Got a source for that?
Unless I'm looking at it wrong, there certainly appears to be some funding directed towards it. Go to page 290. Project U-5307.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)

I think you're right. I'm not sure what the U stands for in those tables (unfunded??), but there is funding listed for Right-of-way and Construction.
NCDOT has letter codes for statewide highway contract identification numbers based on project type:
B-Bridge
I-Interstate
R-Rural
U-Urban

Less common are K for Roadside Environmental projects, such as Rest Areas, FS-Feasibility Studies, and S-
Scenic Route projects. The coding structure and what is funded and unfunded is best explained through looking at the STIP document:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 13, 2018, 06:01:46 PM
^ They actually got it funded between 540 and Wake Forest?  Got a source for that?
Unless I'm looking at it wrong, there certainly appears to be some funding directed towards it. Go to page 290. Project U-5307.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018-2027%20STIP%20-%20Divisions%201-7.pdf)

I think you're right. I'm not sure what the U stands for in those tables (unfunded??), but there is funding listed for Right-of-way and Construction.
NCDOT has letter codes for statewide highway contract identification numbers based on project type:
B-Bridge
I-Interstate
R-Rural
U-Urban

Less common are K for Roadside Environmental projects, such as Rest Areas, FS-Feasibility Studies, and S-
Scenic Route projects. The coding structure and what is funded and unfunded is best explained through looking at the STIP document:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx)

There's a legend/key at the beginning of the STIP. As stated, the "U" in the project number is for "Urban", and the "U" in the funding/schedule table is for utilities. I think "W" or "WS" is for safety improvement projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 13, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
They also forgot the future interstate designation for US 74 from I-26 at Columbus to I-85 at Kings Mountain.  Was that supposed to be 885 or 226?  Or has that one even been approved by the feds yet, or given a number?

Surprisingly NCDOT hasn't applied the corridor to AASHTO for a future interstate designation yet. However, when this does inevitably happen, it will likely be an I-x26.

I agree. They're probably waiting until the Shelby Bypass is complete.

There's also an unfunded project separate from the Shelby Bypass to create a grade separation in Mooresboro (R-4045) that will ultimately hold up a future Interstate designation (I would assume).

I think this was already mentioned previously, but the entire stretch of existing freeway from Columbus to Kings Mountain will have to be upgraded to Interstate standards. Upgrading the section from I-26 to Mooresboro was estimated at a cool $77 million for STI P4.0. It was not funded, to no one's surprise. It's hard to justify that cost for a highway with less than 20,000 vehicles per day.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 13, 2018, 10:18:52 PM
There is still an at grade intersection East of Ellensboro on US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 14, 2018, 10:55:10 PM
Historic Blue Ridge Parkway Viaduct to Close for Repairs
February 14, 2018
https://www.enr.com/articles/44003-historic-blue-ridge-parkway-viaduct-to-close-for-repairs

The Linn Cove Viaduct, one of the most iconic structures of the Blue Ridge Parkway, is set to undergo its first major repaving and maintenance work in more than 30 years.  Located 80 miles northeast of Asheville, N.C., at an elevation of approximately 4,300 ft, the S-curved 1,243-ft-long segmented bridge was the final section of the scenic 469-mile highway that was begun in 1935 as a Civilian Conservation Corps project.  Local and state opposition to a proposal that would have required major cuts and fills on Grand­father Mountain led the National Park Service to route the parkway segment along rugged mountain slopes, including rocky Linn Cove. Comprised of 153 50-ton concrete segments and seven piers, the viaduct was completed in 1983 at a cost of nearly $10 million, according to the National Park Service.  The viaduct is part of a seven-mile segment that will be closed for three months of maintenance on March 1.  The $1.9-million project, to be performed by Bryant Land Development, Burnsville, N.C., will include new pavement, replacement of waterproofing membrane and bridge joints, and repairs to the substructure, railing and drainage system.

....

Photos of viaduct -- https://tinyurl.com/y8q5usvn
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on February 15, 2018, 11:08:09 AM
Pretty big news this morning as FWHA has formally approved the signing of 285

Quote
Lexington - North Carolina is getting a new interstate, Governor Roy Cooper announced Thursday. The Federal Highway Administration has approved Interstate 285 for the 23-mile stretch of U.S. 52 between I-40 in Winston-Salem and I-85 in Lexington.

“This new interstate is great news for the Triad region and all of North Carolina,”  Gov. Cooper said. “Interstates serve as a catalyst for economic growth and make it easier for people and goods to get where they need to go.”

N.C. Department of Transportation officials made the request to upgrade the highway to regular interstate status in September 2017 after completing a pavement and interchange project that brought that stretch of U.S. 52 up to interstate standards. Drivers should see the new interstate signs going up later this year.

“We have increased safety with new designs and upgrades, with the goal of spurring efficiency and future economic development,”  said NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon. “The interstate shield is a highly prized designation for new businesses.”

Making the highway an interstate has been in the plans for more than a decade, as "Future Interstate 285 Corridor" signs have been up along the route since 2006

“Upgrading the highway to an interstate has been a long-time goal of the Davidson County Commissioners, the City of Lexington, and the Winston-Salem and High Point Metropolitan Planning Organizations,”  said NCDOT Division 9 Board of Transportation Member Michael Wells.

As part of the long-range strategic plan to bring improved mobility to the state, North Carolina has added several interstate designations in recent years, including I-87/Future I-87 (Raleigh to Norfolk), Future I-42 (Raleigh to Morehead City) and I-140 (in Brunswick and New Hanover counties).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 15, 2018, 12:06:43 PM
Pretty big news this morning as FWHA has formally approved the signing of 285

Quote
Lexington - North Carolina is getting a new interstate, Governor Roy Cooper announced Thursday. The Federal Highway Administration has approved Interstate 285 for the 23-mile stretch of U.S. 52 between I-40 in Winston-Salem and I-85 in Lexington.

“This new interstate is great news for the Triad region and all of North Carolina,”  Gov. Cooper said. “Interstates serve as a catalyst for economic growth and make it easier for people and goods to get where they need to go.”

N.C. Department of Transportation officials made the request to upgrade the highway to regular interstate status in September 2017 after completing a pavement and interchange project that brought that stretch of U.S. 52 up to interstate standards. Drivers should see the new interstate signs going up later this year.

“We have increased safety with new designs and upgrades, with the goal of spurring efficiency and future economic development,”  said NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon. “The interstate shield is a highly prized designation for new businesses.”

Making the highway an interstate has been in the plans for more than a decade, as "Future Interstate 285 Corridor" signs have been up along the route since 2006

“Upgrading the highway to an interstate has been a long-time goal of the Davidson County Commissioners, the City of Lexington, and the Winston-Salem and High Point Metropolitan Planning Organizations,”  said NCDOT Division 9 Board of Transportation Member Michael Wells.

As part of the long-range strategic plan to bring improved mobility to the state, North Carolina has added several interstate designations in recent years, including I-87/Future I-87 (Raleigh to Norfolk), Future I-42 (Raleigh to Morehead City) and I-140 (in Brunswick and New Hanover counties).
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 15, 2018, 12:26:23 PM
Pretty big news this morning as FWHA has formally approved the signing of 285

Quote
Lexington - North Carolina is getting a new interstate, Governor Roy Cooper announced Thursday. The Federal Highway Administration has approved Interstate 285 for the 23-mile stretch of U.S. 52 between I-40 in Winston-Salem and I-85 in Lexington.

“This new interstate is great news for the Triad region and all of North Carolina,”  Gov. Cooper said. “Interstates serve as a catalyst for economic growth and make it easier for people and goods to get where they need to go.”

N.C. Department of Transportation officials made the request to upgrade the highway to regular interstate status in September 2017 after completing a pavement and interchange project that brought that stretch of U.S. 52 up to interstate standards. Drivers should see the new interstate signs going up later this year.

“We have increased safety with new designs and upgrades, with the goal of spurring efficiency and future economic development,”  said NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon. “The interstate shield is a highly prized designation for new businesses.”

Making the highway an interstate has been in the plans for more than a decade, as "Future Interstate 285 Corridor" signs have been up along the route since 2006

“Upgrading the highway to an interstate has been a long-time goal of the Davidson County Commissioners, the City of Lexington, and the Winston-Salem and High Point Metropolitan Planning Organizations,”  said NCDOT Division 9 Board of Transportation Member Michael Wells.

As part of the long-range strategic plan to bring improved mobility to the state, North Carolina has added several interstate designations in recent years, including I-87/Future I-87 (Raleigh to Norfolk), Future I-42 (Raleigh to Morehead City) and I-140 (in Brunswick and New Hanover counties).
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.


About time! The "Future I-285" signage has been around too long. Now, the most important question is this: What will happen to the original Green 85 now that I-285 will be signed between I-85 and the Green 85/US 29/70/52 Split, following US 52 north to Winston-Salem, due to the fact that Greensboro is removing their Green 85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on February 15, 2018, 02:09:21 PM
Pretty big news this morning as FWHA has formally approved the signing of 285

Quote
Lexington - North Carolina is getting a new interstate, Governor Roy Cooper announced Thursday. The Federal Highway Administration has approved Interstate 285 for the 23-mile stretch of U.S. 52 between I-40 in Winston-Salem and I-85 in Lexington.

“This new interstate is great news for the Triad region and all of North Carolina,”  Gov. Cooper said. “Interstates serve as a catalyst for economic growth and make it easier for people and goods to get where they need to go.”

N.C. Department of Transportation officials made the request to upgrade the highway to regular interstate status in September 2017 after completing a pavement and interchange project that brought that stretch of U.S. 52 up to interstate standards. Drivers should see the new interstate signs going up later this year.

“We have increased safety with new designs and upgrades, with the goal of spurring efficiency and future economic development,”  said NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon. “The interstate shield is a highly prized designation for new businesses.”

Making the highway an interstate has been in the plans for more than a decade, as "Future Interstate 285 Corridor" signs have been up along the route since 2006

“Upgrading the highway to an interstate has been a long-time goal of the Davidson County Commissioners, the City of Lexington, and the Winston-Salem and High Point Metropolitan Planning Organizations,”  said NCDOT Division 9 Board of Transportation Member Michael Wells.

As part of the long-range strategic plan to bring improved mobility to the state, North Carolina has added several interstate designations in recent years, including I-87/Future I-87 (Raleigh to Norfolk), Future I-42 (Raleigh to Morehead City) and I-140 (in Brunswick and New Hanover counties).
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.
They approved the designation in the app.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 15, 2018, 10:53:47 PM
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.

AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 15, 2018, 11:49:49 PM
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.

AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.
Perhaps, though the NCDOT Route Changes page only lists an application in 2005 for Future I-285. AASHTO's website is no help since they recently took down all the links to past applications and replaced it with a simple Excel list of their decisions (and it only lists the establishment of I-295 for 2005).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 16, 2018, 06:04:48 AM
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.

AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.
Perhaps, though the NCDOT Route Changes page only lists an application in 2005 for Future I-285. AASHTO's website is no help since they recently took down all the links to past applications and replaced it with a simple Excel list of their decisions (and it only lists the establishment of I-295 for 2005).

NCDOT never submitted an application to AASHTO for permission to sign the US-64 Knightdale Bypass as I-87, but only Future I-87. FHWA later approved adding the Knightdale Bypass to the Interstate system as I-87 and NCDOT signed it as such without going through AASHTO again.

This appears to be the same case with I-285.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 16, 2018, 06:22:51 PM
The link to the press release: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14850)

Guess the next step would to get an I-285 application sent for the Spring AASHTO USRN Committee meeting, if they want to be able to sign it by the summer or fall.

AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.
Perhaps, though the NCDOT Route Changes page only lists an application in 2005 for Future I-285. AASHTO's website is no help since they recently took down all the links to past applications and replaced it with a simple Excel list of their decisions (and it only lists the establishment of I-295 for 2005).

NCDOT never submitted an application to AASHTO for permission to sign the US-64 Knightdale Bypass as I-87, but only Future I-87. FHWA later approved adding the Knightdale Bypass to the Interstate system as I-87 and NCDOT signed it as such without going through AASHTO again.

This appears to be the same case with I-285.
It's clear that AASHTO has the authority to decide whether a route can be added to the Interstate system, and it's clear that FHWA has the authority to decide whether the route has been improved sufficiently to be signed as an Interstate highway. It's not clear to me why AASHTO would have anything to say about that: they have much less information than FHWA does about improvements to the road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 16, 2018, 08:46:11 PM


AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.

What is your source for this assertion?  The 2003 rejection of I-185 (and I-195 in Fayetteville) do not mention numbering as an issue, see https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042312/http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2003-USRN_Cmte.pdf

The FHWA approval for I-285 came in 2005 and it acknowledges North Carolina's selection of I-285 with no mention that this number was dictated from elsewhere...
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2005_06_16.pdf

edited to add link to I-285 document and to clarify what I am asking about
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 17, 2018, 07:28:39 AM
Quote from: wdcrft63
It's clear that AASHTO has the authority to decide whether a route can be added to the Interstate system, and it's clear that FHWA has the authority to decide whether the route has been improved sufficiently to be signed as an Interstate highway. It's not clear to me why AASHTO would have anything to say about that: they have much less information than FHWA does about improvements to the road.

Actually, FHWA has the authority in both cases.  AASHTO's responsibility regarding Interstate routes is limited to the numbering (also subject to FHWA concurrence).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ssummers72 on February 17, 2018, 09:05:28 AM
The FHWA has the authority to add/withdrawal Interstate Segments according to federal law, see link below:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/interstate_highway_system/

AASHTO's roll is to approve or concur with the number itself. They can make changes according to the Interstate Route Numbering Procedures unless, it has been written into Federal Law i.e. (I-69E,C and W) etc. These cannot be superseded unless the law is changed. So, the states cannot request a new number for that route until the federal law is changed.

See document I-5m for the AASHTO procedures from the link below:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/Pages/Teppl-Topic-Original.aspx?Topic_List=I05

Thank You
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 17, 2018, 10:46:26 AM


AASHTO already approved it years ago, they were the one that gave the recommendation of I-285 after disapproving I-185.  FWHA was the final blessing needed.  What we are now waiting is for NCDOT do their internal processes and sign the freeway, making it official.

What is your source for this assertion?  The 2003 rejection of I-185 (and I-195 in Fayetteville) do not mention numbering as an issue, see https://web.archive.org/web/20160304042312/http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2003-USRN_Cmte.pdf

The FHWA approval for I-285 came in 2005 and it acknowledges North Carolina's selection of I-285 with no mention that this number was dictated from elsewhere...
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2005_06_16.pdf

edited to add link to I-285 document and to clarify what I am asking about

The 2003 request (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/2003-USRN_Cmte.pdf) is specifically a rejection of the numbering chosen by the state, that is what AASHTO does. Sadly, they do not go into any detail in their decision on the summary.

Also, Wikipedia has kept a majority of all the AASHTO reports here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 12:23:50 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 23, 2018, 01:29:39 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)


There should be an competiton between North Carolina and Texas for most interstates.. smh. But I can understand why Jacksonville deserves a interstate connection.... it is probably another I-40 connector.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on February 23, 2018, 02:54:38 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)

I could definitely see an I-42 extension to Jacksonville. An auxiliary of I-42 to Jacksonville (probably I-142) would also be neat, I don't think NC has any I-1xx's besides 140. Of course this isn't possible until I-42 is actually done, which is probably why they're not considering it. Why wait for a whole 2DI to be done? In my head... I messed up my thoughts on the geography of the area and came up with that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on February 23, 2018, 03:15:37 PM
I couldn't figure out why they didn't mention I-42.  All but two of the routes mentioned would be a I-42 3di.  The state is committed enough to I-42 to bank on it. 

If one of the I-42 routes were chosen could Jacksonville steal I-42 since it's more than twice as big as New Bern?  I doubt it since the point of I-42 seems to be to reach Cherry Point and the port of Beaufort.  But I thought it would be fun to ask. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 03:23:45 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)

I could definitely see an I-42 extension to Jacksonville.

...except that I-42 is going to Morehead City, not Jacksonville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on February 23, 2018, 03:27:04 PM
I think US 17's manifest destiny is to become an interstate, at least between Myrtle Beach and Norfolk. The way that coastal areas are developing makes it when, not if.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 03:38:11 PM
I couldn't figure out why they didn't mention I-42.  All but two of the routes mentioned would be a I-42 3di.  The state is committed enough to I-42 to bank on it. 

If one of the I-42 routes were chosen could Jacksonville steal I-42 since it's more than twice as big as New Bern?  I doubt it since the point of I-42 seems to be to reach Cherry Point and the port of Beaufort.  But I thought it would be fun to ask.

US-70 between I-40 in Garner and Morehead City was made a Congressionally designated future interstate and High Priority Corridor by the FAST Act that Obama signed in 2015.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l82 (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l82)

Because AASHTO assigned the I-42 number to US-70, I-42’s routing can only be changed by Congress and there’s absolutely zero chance of that happening, nor would there be any support for it in eastern NC (except perhaps Jacksonville). The importance of US-70 warrants a single interstate number anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2018, 03:46:03 PM
I think US 17's manifest destiny is to become an interstate, at least between Myrtle Beach and Norfolk. The way that coastal areas are developing makes it when, not if.

NCDOT wants to eventually make US-17 a freeway throughout the whole state, so I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened.

That being said, I think NCDOT should focus on I-42 and I-795 first. Of all the future interstates that’s been officially designated so far, those two corridors are the most important in eastern NC right now, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2018, 03:46:25 PM
^^ The Legislation just means the corridor needs to be an Interstate.  It doesn't specify that it needs to be the same number along the entire corridor.  Theoretically, I-42 could be routed to Jacksonville as long as the segment of US 70 being bypassed by 42 has another Interstate designation.

That said, I agree with your last sentence in that US 70 is important enough to where it should retain a single Interstate number.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on February 23, 2018, 04:54:17 PM
NCDOT has posted a visualization video of the Complete 540 project.

youtu.be/TU3UVwAtc5Y (http://youtu.be/TU3UVwAtc5Y)

Most of this is pretty conventional stuff. Dat 5-way interchange, tho.... It can be seen at 4:30 in the video. They are literally one ramp away from having a roundabout with a diameter of 3/4 mile. Basically a giant circular collector/distributor handling some of the less busy movements.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 23, 2018, 05:08:45 PM
Quote from: LM117
That being said, I think NCDOT should focus on I-42 and I-795 first. Of all the future interstates that’s been officially designated so far, those two corridors are the most important in eastern NC right now, IMO.

Actually, I think US-74/76 coming out of Wilmington should be upgraded to Interstate standards from I-140 to Whiteville. For all the emphasis North Carolina's I-87 effort would give to an out of state port one would think they might want to direct more business at the port in Wilmington. I think it's ridiculous both I-73 and I-74 are planned to go into the Myrtle Beach metro. I think I-74 would be better directed to Wilmington. It would certainly be far easier to upgrade the existing US-74/76 divided highway to Interstate standards rather than build all the new terrain mileage needed to get the road into the Myrtle Beach area.

Before all the I-73/I-74 stuff got started I thought I-20 should be extended East from Florence, SC over to Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 23, 2018, 06:14:53 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)

I could definitely see an I-42 extension to Jacksonville. An auxiliary of I-42 to Jacksonville (probably I-142) would also be neat, I don't think NC has any I-1xx's besides 140. Of course this isn't possible until I-42 is actually done, which is probably why they're not considering it. Why wait for a whole 2DI to be done?
The obvious way to connect Jacksonville to the Interstate system is by upgrading US 17 to a freeway between Jacksonville and New Bern, something likely to happen anyway. The approach to New Bern is already a freeway connecting to US 70/Future I-42, and a current project is extending this freeway through Jones County. NCDOT has been building freeways all across the state for many years; it's only in the last few years that City Councils and Chambers of Commerce have become seized with the desire to put Interstate shields on those freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 23, 2018, 06:34:01 PM
At the risk of edging into the Fictional realm (although with NC that line is certainly blurred!), after an E-W US 74-based corridor between I-26 and Rockingham is fully planned and incorporated into the state's Interstate network (which more than one poster deems inevitable), my guesstimation is that the next project to be tackled will be the "Interstatization" of US 17 from at least Wilmington north to Williamston/I-87 (and probably south of there into SC, piggybacking on the I-74 concept).  What it would be designated is anyone's guess, but the prospect of serving Jacksonville and Camp Lejeune would likely be a deciding factor (along with the fact that much of it has already seen improvement albeit on a piecemeal basis).  Probably 25-40 years out at best, but likely already on someone's radar with NC circles.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on February 23, 2018, 10:37:59 PM
Given the I-42 project Clayton-Morehead City (understanding it has a lot of work to do), the best chance Jville has would be a spur of it. As someone who lived in Jville area for 8 years, and traveled those roads extensively, a connection from New Bern is already under construction.

US 17 from Wilmington up is no where near standard, and nothing on the books will expedite that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 02:14:00 AM
Quote from: LM117
That being said, I think NCDOT should focus on I-42 and I-795 first. Of all the future interstates that’s been officially designated so far, those two corridors are the most important in eastern NC right now, IMO.

Actually, I think US-74/76 coming out of Wilmington should be upgraded to Interstate standards from I-140 to Whiteville. For all the emphasis North Carolina's I-87 effort would give to an out of state port one would think they might want to direct more business at the port in Wilmington. I think it's ridiculous both I-73 and I-74 are planned to go into the Myrtle Beach metro. I think I-74 would be better directed to Wilmington. It would certainly be far easier to upgrade the existing US-74/76 divided highway to Interstate standards rather than build all the new terrain mileage needed to get the road into the Myrtle Beach area.

Wilmington is pushing hard for it and I agree that I-74 should go to Wilmington.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171030/officials-want-to-see-i-140-get-second-interstate-shield (http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20171030/officials-want-to-see-i-140-get-second-interstate-shield)

Quote
Before all the I-73/I-74 stuff got started I thought I-20 should be extended East from Florence, SC over to Wilmington.

Back in the early 2000’s, NC governor Mike Easley wanted I-20 extended to Wilmington but SC refused. All talk of it dropped since then, but I think NCDOT still shows an I-20 extension on their maps so they seem to be keeping the pipe dream alive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2018, 02:46:44 AM
US 17 from Wilmington up is no where near standard, and nothing on the books will expedite that.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/ (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US17HampsteadBypass/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 11:01:32 AM

Back in the early 2000’s, NC governor Mike Easley wanted I-20 extended to Wilmington but SC refused. All talk of it dropped since then, but I think NCDOT still shows an I-20 extension on their maps so they seem to be keeping the pipe dream alive.


So slap I-20 shields on I-95 and a US 74 freeway to Wilmington.  Then you could also have I-20 run to Jacksonville.

SC refuses (as it has for decades) to extend I-20 directly to Wilmington because they get nothing out of it.  SC would want to run it close to Myrtle Beach which makes it less desirable for Wilmington given that I-95 to US 74 to Wilmington is only 10-15 miles longer than US 76 directly (presumed I-20 corridor).  And since they are trying to get I-73 built, extending I-20 to Myrtle Beach doesn't even make that much sense anymore either.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on February 24, 2018, 11:37:50 AM
And since they are trying to get I-73 built, extending I-20 to Myrtle Beach doesn't even make that much sense anymore either.

SC could at least extend I-20 to end at I-73.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 24, 2018, 12:17:16 PM
And since they are trying to get I-73 built, extending I-20 to Myrtle Beach doesn't even make that much sense anymore either.

SC could at least extend I-20 to end at I-73.

This already exists - I-95, which runs more E-W from Florence to North Carolina.  I-20 would have to bypass Florence...around the north side it would just use I-95 and I-73 is supposed to cross 95 a little north of SC 38. 

If I-20 were to bypass Florence around the south it would be considerably longer than just using 95 to 73 and also have to traverse a large swamp (Pee Dee River).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jwolfer on February 24, 2018, 12:19:11 PM
And since they are trying to get I-73 built, extending I-20 to Myrtle Beach doesn't even make that much sense anymore either.

SC could at least extend I-20 to end at I-73.
If South Carolina had money they would probably complete SC22 to Florence.. if it were built to interstate standards and they applied to have it designated and it were complete it would probably be approved.

Myrtle Beach should be hooked into interstate system better. But SC did not invest.. and Wilmington to Charlotte ( and out to i26) should be an interstate but NOT 74. I like 28. i74 makes no sense in NC it will never be completed by WV, or OH.. much of it is with 73

NC is actually planning and building roads so much more likely to be more along NC wishes.

Z981

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 25, 2018, 02:01:13 PM
Wilmington is pushing hard for it and I agree that I-74 should go to Wilmington.

If Wilmington wants to make it happen, then they need to lobby the Federal Government to change I-74's routing, otherwise it's not going to happen.  Wilmington cannot just add I-74 shields, NCDOT isn't going to reroute the freeway to them and South Carolina will not stand for it.

Back in the early 2000’s, NC governor Mike Easley wanted I-20 extended to Wilmington but SC refused. All talk of it dropped since then, but I think NCDOT still shows an I-20 extension on their maps so they seem to be keeping the pipe dream alive.

Notice the fact that nobody has talked about it since Easley left office. I doubt NCDOT is even thinking about it.  Dreams come and go, so just accept it and move on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2018, 02:34:25 PM
Wilmington is pushing hard for it and I agree that I-74 should go to Wilmington.

If Wilmington wants to make it happen, then they need to lobby the Federal Government to change I-74's routing, otherwise it's not going to happen.  Wilmington cannot just add I-74 shields, NCDOT isn't going to reroute the freeway to them and South Carolina will not stand for it.

Back in the early 2000’s, NC governor Mike Easley wanted I-20 extended to Wilmington but SC refused. All talk of it dropped since then, but I think NCDOT still shows an I-20 extension on their maps so they seem to be keeping the pipe dream alive.

Notice the fact that nobody has talked about it since Easley left office. I doubt NCDOT is even thinking about it.  Dreams come and go, so just accept it and move on.
(1) The idea of extending I-20 is ancient history; no one in any position of responsibility is thinking about it now.

(2) I-74 is never going to Myrtle Beach. The route exists of some NCDOT maps, but there is zero interest in building it. NCDOT is cooperating with SC on an extension of SC 31 to connect with US 17, but neither state is calling this an I-74 project.

(3) I-74, under some name or other, will eventually go to the Wilmington. The gap between the current end of Future I-74 east of Whiteville and I-140 at Leland is about 32 miles. The first 14 miles (from east of Whiteville to east of Bolton) is already on new location and only needs to have a few at-grade intersections upgraded. The remaining 18 miles probably require a new route. Look for NCDOT to begin planning this route within the next few years.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on February 25, 2018, 04:11:09 PM
Jacksonville is wanting a piece of the interstate pie, but they don’t know which slice they want.

http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon (http://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon)

I could definitely see an I-42 extension to Jacksonville.

...except that I-42 is going to Morehead City, not Jacksonville.

I had thought that Jacksonville was more south of Morehead City.. In my head when I wrote that post my brain just told me it was on the south side of the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula.

Even then, albeit being silly, it could just pull an I-64 Hampton Roads area and then go to Jacksonville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 25, 2018, 10:47:06 PM
Wilmington is pushing hard for it and I agree that I-74 should go to Wilmington.

If Wilmington wants to make it happen, then they need to lobby the Federal Government to change I-74's routing, otherwise it's not going to happen.  Wilmington cannot just add I-74 shields, NCDOT isn't going to reroute the freeway to them and South Carolina will not stand for it.

SCDOT signed an agreement with NCDOT in the 2005 whereby NCDOT got to move their proposed route for I-73 further east in exchange for their financing the extension of the Carolina Bays Parkway northward to US 17 in NC which could either be I-74 or an I-74 spur route. Therefore changing the I-74 route to end in Wilmington should not be a big deal to SC, if they end up with another route to Myrtle Beach, though, as pointed out, it would need federal approval.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2018, 09:44:34 AM
Following public hearings, NCDOT has selected designs for the reconstruction of three interchanges on the older section of I-40 in the Morganton area (Burke County). The three exits (#100, 107, and 111) are all old, tight-ramped diamonds. They'll still be diamonds, but with new bridges over the freeway and, in most cases, roundabouts at the ends of the ramps. Maps are available here:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14897
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 01, 2018, 12:24:09 PM
Following public hearings, NCDOT has selected designs for the reconstruction of three interchanges on the older section of I-40 in the Morganton area (Burke County). The three exits (#100, 107, and 111) are all old, tight-ramped diamonds. They'll still be diamonds, but with new bridges over the freeway and, in most cases, roundabouts at the ends of the ramps. Maps are available here:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14897

Fantastic news.  Those bridges and ramps needed to be replaced.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 05, 2018, 06:17:01 PM
Progress report on the Greenville SW Bypass Project:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 05, 2018, 10:41:39 PM
Following public hearings, NCDOT has selected designs for the reconstruction of three interchanges on the older section of I-40 in the Morganton area (Burke County). The three exits (#100, 107, and 111) are all old, tight-ramped diamonds. They'll still be diamonds, but with new bridges over the freeway and, in most cases, roundabouts at the ends of the ramps. Maps are available here:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14897

Fantastic news.  Those bridges and ramps needed to be replaced.

With the other project of making exit 103 an SPUI with Burkemont going 6 lanes, it looks like Morganton will be construction ground zero for many years.  Exit 104 and 105 are rebuilt but the Old NC 18 overpass needs replaced before any thoughts of making I-40 into 6 lanes can happen.  There has been no talk of upgrades to exit 106, and frankly, if it were not for the businesses at the exit, the exit could just go away.  I do find it hard to believe anyone local would have suggested roundabouts.  Lots of industrial at exit 100, lots of semi's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 06, 2018, 09:28:18 AM
Progress report on the Greenville SW Bypass Project:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921)

In other Greenville-related news, here’s an update on the 10th Street Connector project:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14919 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14919)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has been hard at work converting 10th Street in Greenville into a four-lane divided road with a landscaped median that directly links Memorial Drive to 10th Street at Evans Street.

Once completed by summer, 2019, the 10th Street Connector will provide a vital connection between Vidant Medical Center and East Carolina University (and Uptown Greenville Central Business District).

The 1.4 mile long connector is expected to reduce traffic congestion and create greater connectivity with the construction of a bridge over the CSX Rail Road.

Recent activity on the 10th Street Connector includes the grading and paving of 9th Street, utility and drainage work on Evans Street, new lanes on Farmville Boulevard to tie into Memorial Street.

DOT will soon be shifting traffic to new lanes on Farmville Blvd, so work on existing lanes can take place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on March 06, 2018, 02:12:20 PM
Progress report on the Greenville SW Bypass Project:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14921)

In other Greenville-related news, here’s an update on the 10th Street Connector project:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14919 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14919)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation has been hard at work converting 10th Street in Greenville into a four-lane divided road with a landscaped median that directly links Memorial Drive to 10th Street at Evans Street.

Once completed by summer, 2019, the 10th Street Connector will provide a vital connection between Vidant Medical Center and East Carolina University (and Uptown Greenville Central Business District).

The 1.4 mile long connector is expected to reduce traffic congestion and create greater connectivity with the construction of a bridge over the CSX Rail Road.

Recent activity on the 10th Street Connector includes the grading and paving of 9th Street, utility and drainage work on Evans Street, new lanes on Farmville Boulevard to tie into Memorial Street.

DOT will soon be shifting traffic to new lanes on Farmville Blvd, so work on existing lanes can take place.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6072856,-77.3800359,96m/data=!3m1!1e3

It bypasses this rather interesting railroad crossing, which has, to my knowledge, the only (or one of the only) 5 section horizontal signals in North Carolina. Horizontal signals are a rare find in NC, 5 sections that aren't doghouses are even more rare. I think there was an 8 inch 5 section tall signal in Elizabeth City on US 158 until it was removed, some time after 2008. I don't know though, this is just hazy memory from looking around with GSV.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 09, 2018, 01:21:17 PM
A Wake County Superior Court judge has ordered NCDOT to pay property owners who are in the path of NC-540’s planned extension.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article203584034.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article203584034.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 09, 2018, 08:31:34 PM
NCDOT will break ground in April on a project to improve the Aviation Parkway Exit (Exit 285) of I-40 near RDU Airport, Raleigh. The existing bridge over I-40 will be replaced by a wider one, and a new loop ramp will be added for WB I-40 traffic to go SB on Aviation Parkway. Completion expected in September 2020.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14946
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 16, 2018, 05:38:31 PM
Construction crews working on the new Bonner Bridge struck an underground cable, knocking out power to Ocracoke and Hatteras islands. Oops...

http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/local/regional/mandatory-evacuation-on-ocracoke-island-after-obx-power-outage-fix-could-take-weeks/460027899 (http://www.wcnc.com/mb/news/local/regional/mandatory-evacuation-on-ocracoke-island-after-obx-power-outage-fix-could-take-weeks/460027899)

The contractor has agreed to pay $10.35 million to settle the lawsuits.

http://www.wral.com/contractor-to-pay-10-3m-to-settle-lawsuits-over-outer-banks-power-outage/17421718/ (http://www.wral.com/contractor-to-pay-10-3m-to-settle-lawsuits-over-outer-banks-power-outage/17421718/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 18, 2018, 09:40:11 PM
I was commuting home tonight along I-40 at MM 96 and passed a F-150 pulling a trailer full of new BGS's.

The only one I could really see was like Exit 183A Roselawn Ave City Stadium.  Don't know what project it was going to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 23, 2018, 05:28:58 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing Tuesday on proposed reconfigurations of the intersection of US 70/NC 50 with Timber Drive/Hammond Rd. on the south side of Raleigh. One of the proposals calls for a SPUI.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14989
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 23, 2018, 05:34:00 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing Monday on an upgrade to the interchange of US 29 (Future I-785) with Reedy Fork Parkway north of Greensboro. The plan calls for replacing the present interchange with a DDI:
https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-4707_rdy_phm_3-12-2018.pdf

I suppose (hope?) this is compatible with eventual upgrade of US 29 to interstate standards, but there remain at-grade intersections on both sides of the interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on March 23, 2018, 06:24:18 PM
A DDI for Bryan Park and a few businesses?  Really?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on March 23, 2018, 11:04:12 PM
A DDI for Bryan Park and a few businesses?  Really?

Even if current traffic doesn't need one right now, it could be needed in the future for potential growth. Best to do it now if that's the case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2018, 10:43:10 AM
Upcoming traffic shifts on I-95 in Johnson County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022)

Quote
The paved shoulders along a two-mile leg of Interstate 95 in Johnston County will need to narrow this week as part of ongoing construction.

If the weather allows, northbound travelers will follow a traffic shift, starting Friday, April 9, between mile markers 100 and 102 north of Selma. Contract workers for the N.C. Department of Transportation need the extra room to safely build a new median and permanent concrete median barrier.

About a week later, the same shift will occur in the southbound direction. In the coming weeks, motorists can expect similar shifts and narrower shoulders north of mile marker 102 as part of the overall project.

Transportation officials remind motorists to be alert and obey speed limits and work-zone postings.

Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh is replacing original concrete sections underneath the pavement, rebuilding the median and resurfacing the interstate between mile markers 100 and 107. The project also includes replacing two bridges — at Lizzie Mill Road and Bizzell Grove Church Road — with longer and higher spans.

For real-time travel information, go to DriveNC.gov, or follow NCDOT on Twitter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2018, 03:34:03 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) in Kinston is being extended from NC-58 to NC-11.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/Felix-Harvey-Parkway-being-extended-to-Highway-11-478676233.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Felix-Harvey-Parkway-being-extended-to-Highway-11-478676233.html)

Quote
Work is underway on a big highway project that is expected to benefit northern Lenoir County.

The Felix Harvey Parkway is being extended from Highway 58 near the Global TransPark over to Highway 11.

The $73.5 million project is being built by Branch Civil, Incorporated from Roanoke, Virginia.

The parkway will join Highway 11 just south of the DuPont plant, adding 5.8 miles of four-lane highway.

When completed in 2021, drivers will be able to take Felix Harvey Parkway from Highway 11 to where the road currently ends at U.S. 70 west of Kinston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2018, 04:04:02 PM
Upcoming traffic shifts on I-95 in Johnson County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022)

Quote
The paved shoulders along a two-mile leg of Interstate 95 in Johnston County will need to narrow this week as part of ongoing construction.

If the weather allows, northbound travelers will follow a traffic shift, starting Friday, April 9, between mile markers 100 and 102 north of Selma. Contract workers for the N.C. Department of Transportation need the extra room to safely build a new median and permanent concrete median barrier.

About a week later, the same shift will occur in the southbound direction. In the coming weeks, motorists can expect similar shifts and narrower shoulders north of mile marker 102 as part of the overall project.

Transportation officials remind motorists to be alert and obey speed limits and work-zone postings.

Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh is replacing original concrete sections underneath the pavement, rebuilding the median and resurfacing the interstate between mile markers 100 and 107. The project also includes replacing two bridges — at Lizzie Mill Road and Bizzell Grove Church Road — with longer and higher spans.

For real-time travel information, go to DriveNC.gov, or follow NCDOT on Twitter.

The main part of this project -- replacing now-worn pavement and underpinnings -- sounds like a stratightforward "repair-in-place" type of construction.  But replacing overcrossings with wider structures may portend widening of I-95 itself.  A question to NC posters:  are there any pending contracts of which you're aware to actually effect a capacity increase on I-95? -- or at least revamp the ROW to accommodate future expansion?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 03, 2018, 06:24:18 PM
NCDOT has published, as part of the process that will produce the Draft 2019-2029 STIP, the projects with the highest scores according to Statewide Mobility Projects formula:
https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf)
Among the Highway projects listed are widening US 64/264/Future I-87 to 6 lanes from Wendell Blvd. to the US 64/264 split, the creation of managed lanes for I-40 from Wade Ave to NC 42, I-440, I-87 from I-440 to I-540 and US 1 South from I-40 to NC 540 in the Raleigh area, Upgrading US 70 (Future I-42) to a freeway for 7 miles from the end of the future Havelock Bypass to Thurman Rd in Craven County, Convert the I-87/US 64/264 interchange with Smithfield Rd to a DDI, Widen US 1 from 4 to 6 lanes from NC 55 to US 64, Widen I-85 to 6 lanes from the SC line to US 74 and to 8 lanes from US 74 to US 321, and add additional lanes to I-40 in Orange County from I-40 to US 15/501.

The press release summarizing the details is at: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 04, 2018, 07:26:58 AM
Upcoming traffic shifts on I-95 in Johnson County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15022)

Quote
The paved shoulders along a two-mile leg of Interstate 95 in Johnston County will need to narrow this week as part of ongoing construction.

If the weather allows, northbound travelers will follow a traffic shift, starting Friday, April 9, between mile markers 100 and 102 north of Selma. Contract workers for the N.C. Department of Transportation need the extra room to safely build a new median and permanent concrete median barrier.

About a week later, the same shift will occur in the southbound direction. In the coming weeks, motorists can expect similar shifts and narrower shoulders north of mile marker 102 as part of the overall project.

Transportation officials remind motorists to be alert and obey speed limits and work-zone postings.

Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh is replacing original concrete sections underneath the pavement, rebuilding the median and resurfacing the interstate between mile markers 100 and 107. The project also includes replacing two bridges — at Lizzie Mill Road and Bizzell Grove Church Road — with longer and higher spans.

For real-time travel information, go to DriveNC.gov, or follow NCDOT on Twitter.

The main part of this project -- replacing now-worn pavement and underpinnings -- sounds like a stratightforward "repair-in-place" type of construction.  But replacing overcrossings with wider structures may portend widening of I-95 itself.  A question to NC posters:  are there any pending contracts of which you're aware to actually effect a capacity increase on I-95? -- or at least revamp the ROW to accommodate future expansion?

Two sections of I-95 will be widened to 8 lanes, as well as rebuilding substandard interchanges with construction to begin in 2026. Details here:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article179911261.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article179911261.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 04, 2018, 09:49:52 PM
NCDOT has published, as part of the process that will produce the Draft 2019-2029 STIP, the projects with the highest scores according to Statewide Mobility Projects formula:
https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf)
Among the Highway projects listed are widening US 64/264/Future I-87 to 6 lanes from Wendell Blvd. to the US 64/264 split, the creation of managed lanes for I-40 from Wade Ave to NC 42, I-440, I-87 from I-440 to I-540 and US 1 South from I-40 to NC 540 in the Raleigh area, Upgrading US 70 (Future I-42) to a freeway for 7 miles from the end of the future Havelock Bypass to Thurman Rd in Craven County, Convert the I-87/US 64/264 interchange with Smithfield Rd to a DDI, Widen US 1 from 4 to 6 lanes from NC 55 to US 64, Widen I-85 to 6 lanes from the SC line to US 74 and to 8 lanes from US 74 to US 321, and add additional lanes to I-40 in Orange County from I-40 to US 15/501.

The press release summarizing the details is at: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029)
Among the projects not listed with the highest scores (above 75), but relatively high ones are upgrading US 29 between Hicone Rd and Reidsville to interstate standards for I-785 (73.79), upgrading US 74 between NC 41 in Lumberton to US 76 west of Whiteville to interstate standards for I-74 (73.85), upgrading US 74 to interstate standards between Rockingham and Lauringburg for I-74 (72.10), and upgrading US 64 to interstate standards from Wake to Martin Counties for I-87 (65.87). It is probable that some, if not all, of these projects will be listed in the 2019-2029 Draft STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on April 05, 2018, 12:38:06 AM
That widening of I-85 from the SC line north[east]ward is long overdue.

Also I like the fact that I-785 may actually see some light of day along US 29 sooner than later. The already freeway grade portion deserves to be connected to Greensboro, interstate designation or not.

Hooray for I-42 (the only new 2di in NC that is actually worth it)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on April 06, 2018, 02:51:35 PM
Drove down I-77 on Wednesday on the first half of a trip to Florida. The three former rest areas are blocked off and demolition has begun. At the one closest to Charlotte, the buildings are gone and work was in progress to take out pavement and the rest of the infrastructure. I guess they will just be green spaces when its all done.

We didn't stop at the delux new rest area but passed it by in early evening. It looked like the truck parking area was already full to capacity and just about overflowing. Was there a net loss of truck parking spaces from three rest areas into one? Ramps are still popular with truckers who have hit their driving limit and it seems like more space in this new rest area would help alleviate that.

Bruce, not in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 07, 2018, 09:45:24 AM
We didn't stop at the delux new rest area but passed it by in early evening. It looked like the truck parking area was already full to capacity and just about overflowing. Was there a net loss of truck parking spaces from three rest areas into one? Ramps are still popular with truckers who have hit their driving limit and it seems like more space in this new rest area would help alleviate that.

Luckily for you, I had visited all four rest areas in 2016 and wrote their capacities; I have uploaded pictures on WikiCommons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstate_77_rest_areas_in_North_Carolina) for future generations to see.


And here are the capacities of the new Iredell County Rest area:


Do the math and we get: -22 car spaces, -3 car with trailer spaces and no change in truck spaces going northbound.  -22 car spaces, -2 car with trailer spaces and +2 truck spaces going southbound.

My opinion is that the reduction in car and trailer spaces is fine, but I would have wished they expanded more for trucking.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 07, 2018, 08:46:43 PM
Dana and I passed this rest area going to Yadkinville.  My concern was that there was too short an accel lane for traffic going 70+ mph but it looks like the merge lane is longer than I thought.

Sad to see that there are fewer truck spaces, especially since the rest area just south of US 421 in Yadkin County closed, too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 08, 2018, 12:02:02 AM
Sad to see that there are fewer truck spaces, especially since the rest area just south of US 421 in Yadkin County closed, too.

You didn't read my post.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 08, 2018, 02:35:51 PM
NCDOT has published, as part of the process that will produce the Draft 2019-2029 STIP, the projects with the highest scores according to Statewide Mobility Projects formula:
https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/download/draft-programmed-statewide-mobility-projects.pdf)
Among the Highway projects listed are widening US 64/264/Future I-87 to 6 lanes from Wendell Blvd. to the US 64/264 split, the creation of managed lanes for I-40 from Wade Ave to NC 42, I-440, I-87 from I-440 to I-540 and US 1 South from I-40 to NC 540 in the Raleigh area, Upgrading US 70 (Future I-42) to a freeway for 7 miles from the end of the future Havelock Bypass to Thurman Rd in Craven County, Convert the I-87/US 64/264 interchange with Smithfield Rd to a DDI, Widen US 1 from 4 to 6 lanes from NC 55 to US 64, Widen I-85 to 6 lanes from the SC line to US 74 and to 8 lanes from US 74 to US 321, and add additional lanes to I-40 in Orange County from I-40 to US 15/501.

The press release summarizing the details is at: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15029)

I'm glad NCDOT has adopted the data-driven prioritization process for project selection, but you have to wonder about some of these project scores. For example, how does realigning the U.S. 74/N.C. 108 interchange in Polk County have any impact on statewide mobility?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 08, 2018, 08:46:37 PM
I seem to have chronic issues with accessing NCDot PDF files, but I anxiously await to see what next in store for the Unifour area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 11, 2018, 06:28:36 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing Monday on the project to widen I-26 between Hendersonville and I-40 at Asheville. The road will be widened to 6 lanes south of the US 25/Asheville Highway exit (exit 44) and to 8 lanes between that point and I-40. Exit 44 will be replaced by a DDI. More controversially perhaps, the interchange with US 64 (Exit 49) will be rebuilt: currently it is a tight cloverleaf (malfunction junction style). It will be replaced by a half cloverleaf, and traffic exiting I-26 will be forced to turn right; to go the other way will then require a U-turn. Here are links:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15064
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i26Widening/

Construction is set to begin in 2019.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 11, 2018, 08:45:36 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing Monday on the project to widen I-26 between Hendersonville and I-40 at Asheville. The road will be widened to 6 lanes south of the US 25/Asheville Highway exit (exit 44) and to 8 lanes between that point and I-40. Exit 44 will be replaced by a DDI. More controversially perhaps, the interchange with US 64 (Exit 49) will be rebuilt: currently it is a tight cloverleaf (malfunction junction style). It will be replaced by a half cloverleaf, and traffic exiting I-26 will be forced to turn right; to go the other way will then require a U-turn. Here are links:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15064
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i26Widening/

Construction is set to begin in 2019.

It's still a partial cloverleaf at US 64/Four Seasons, so no U-turns are involved. I think the new release was worded poorly. I-26 WB to US 64 WB will loop and turn right onto Four Seasons, and I-26 WB to US 64 EB will exit and turn right. Same for I-26 EB. It looks like they've also added a "continuous flow" element for the left turns onto I-26 from Four Seasons (left turn lanes will cross over before the bridge).

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/I-4400_I-4700_RDY_PHM_Sheet_2_rev_2018-03-28.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/I-4400_I-4700_RDY_PHM_Sheet_2_rev_2018-03-28.pdf)

Also, the construction starting in 2019 will only be from US 64 west, and the 64 interchange won't be revised until 2023. The southern/eastern most section from 64 to 25 (Exit 54) isn't funded yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 12, 2018, 07:39:46 AM
Correct...no U-turns needed.  The new config will be what's commonly called a 6-ramp par-clo (for partial-cloverleaf).  But, interestingly, all 6 ramps (including the loops) will be signalized.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: adventurernumber1 on April 12, 2018, 04:04:46 PM
I am very excited to hear this news. It is probably very highly needed, as I-26 may only be four lanes all the way to I-40, IIRC, and Asheville, NC is growing more and more. Hopefully the newly redone interchanges will turn out well (including the possible DDI).

Honestly, I don't think it would be a terrible idea if the entirety of Interstate 26 from Asheville, North Carolina to Charleston, South Carolina was widened to at least 6 lanes (especially I-26 between Columbia and I-95 needs this). I think this would really help both states, as Interstate 26 has a very high level of importance (especially for South Carolina). For now, widening this section of I-26 in North Carolina is a great start. I cannot wait to see the results!  :nod:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 12, 2018, 06:19:11 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing Monday on the project to widen I-26 between Hendersonville and I-40 at Asheville. The road will be widened to 6 lanes south of the US 25/Asheville Highway exit (exit 44) and to 8 lanes between that point and I-40. Exit 44 will be replaced by a DDI. More controversially perhaps, the interchange with US 64 (Exit 49) will be rebuilt: currently it is a tight cloverleaf (malfunction junction style). It will be replaced by a half cloverleaf, and traffic exiting I-26 will be forced to turn right; to go the other way will then require a U-turn. Here are links:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15064
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i26Widening/

Construction is set to begin in 2019.

It's still a partial cloverleaf at US 64/Four Seasons, so no U-turns are involved. I think the new release was worded poorly. I-26 WB to US 64 WB will loop and turn right onto Four Seasons, and I-26 WB to US 64 EB will exit and turn right. Same for I-26 EB. It looks like they've also added a "continuous flow" element for the left turns onto I-26 from Four Seasons (left turn lanes will cross over before the bridge).

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/I-4400_I-4700_RDY_PHM_Sheet_2_rev_2018-03-28.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/I-4400_I-4700_RDY_PHM_Sheet_2_rev_2018-03-28.pdf)

Also, the construction starting in 2019 will only be from US 64 west, and the 64 interchange won't be revised until 2023. The southern/eastern most section from 64 to 25 (Exit 54) isn't funded yet.
Thanks for these clarifications. The press release was quite misleading on several points.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 13, 2018, 10:05:59 AM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to mill & resurface I-795 between the Wayne/Wilson county line and US-264.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15068 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15068)

Quote
Almost eight miles of Interstate 795 in Wilson will be repaved over the next year.

Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh will mill away the top layer of old asphalt and resurface the freeway and its ramps between the Wilson-Wayne county line and Wiggins Mill Road.

During construction, drivers should expect intermittent lane closures, except for holiday weekends.

Fred Smith received a $5.8 million contract from the N.C. Department of Transportation in March. The company may start work after April 30, and it has until June 2019 to finish.

This was one of 16 road and bridge contracts recently awarded by NCDOT. Per state law, they went to the lowest qualified bidder for each project. The contracts are worth $429.7 million, nearly $39 million under engineer estimates.

While there is no press release for it, the same is currently being done between US-70 in Goldsboro and the Wilson County line. The project can also be seen on NCDOT’s Progress Report page.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-18-2017%20Central%20Letting/Wayne%20I-5935%20C204024.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-18-2017%20Central%20Letting/Wayne%20I-5935%20C204024.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on April 14, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Random thought: It seems that NC is the only state where roads labelled as "Future I-xx" are commonplace. I know of 4 in the state right now. Future I-26 on US 19/23/25/70 north of Asheville, Future I-74 in several sections, mostly along US 74 east of Rockingham, Future I-87 and Future I-42 around Raleigh and eastward. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that NCDOT wants folks to start using the I-numbers before the road is actually considered an interstate. I-26 is sort of understandable because it's just a gap, and there are actual plans to close it. But the others are just far-fetched ideas. Future I-74 has been signed on US 74 ever since the freeway opened up, but no real progress has been made on the route as a whole other than the section with I-73. I just see this all as a waste of resources considering most people don't give a shit what the road is numbered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 14, 2018, 04:04:09 PM
Random thought: It seems that NC is the only state where roads labelled as "Future I-xx" are commonplace. I know of 4 in the state right now. Future I-26 on US 19/23/25/70 north of Asheville, Future I-74 in several sections, mostly along US 74 east of Rockingham, Future I-87 and Future I-42 around Raleigh and eastward.

You forgot Future I-587, which is signed along US-264 between Zebulon and Greenville. There’s also Future I-795 on US-117 between Goldsboro and I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 15, 2018, 08:37:43 AM
Random thought: It seems that NC is the only state where roads labelled as "Future I-xx" are commonplace. I know of 4 in the state right now. Future I-26 on US 19/23/25/70 north of Asheville, Future I-74 in several sections, mostly along US 74 east of Rockingham, Future I-87 and Future I-42 around Raleigh and eastward. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that NCDOT wants folks to start using the I-numbers before the road is actually considered an interstate. I-26 is sort of understandable because it's just a gap, and there are actual plans to close it. But the others are just far-fetched ideas. Future I-74 has been signed on US 74 ever since the freeway opened up, but no real progress has been made on the route as a whole other than the section with I-73. I just see this all as a waste of resources considering most people don't give a shit what the road is numbered.

You also forgot Future I-285, which is planned to finally be signed later this year.

I know for fact South Carolina has Future I-73 signs and I wouldn't doubt other states indicate future interstates in similar manner.  Printing a few signs on wooden posts is not that much of a waste of resources.  The reason the states do it is to show that future plans are in place to improve the corridor; also helps spread the word for people that don't keep up with highway news that things are changing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 15, 2018, 09:45:33 AM
The “Future I-xxx”  signs are also typically used by towns/cities along it’s path as a marketing tool to help lure businesses. That’s why Greenville spent a good 4 years lobbying hard for what would become I-587.

While some businesses don’t care about I-shields, there are some that are pretty anal about it. The state and the city of Kinston discovered that the hard way with the Global TransPark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 15, 2018, 10:37:13 AM
Random thought: It seems that NC is the only state where roads labelled as "Future I-xx" are commonplace. I know of 4 in the state right now. Future I-26 on US 19/23/25/70 north of Asheville, Future I-74 in several sections, mostly along US 74 east of Rockingham, Future I-87 and Future I-42 around Raleigh and eastward. What is the reason for this? It seems to me that NCDOT wants folks to start using the I-numbers before the road is actually considered an interstate. I-26 is sort of understandable because it's just a gap, and there are actual plans to close it. But the others are just far-fetched ideas. Future I-74 has been signed on US 74 ever since the freeway opened up, but no real progress has been made on the route as a whole other than the section with I-73. I just see this all as a waste of resources considering most people don't give a shit what the road is numbered.

You also forgot Future I-285, which is planned to finally be signed later this year.

I know for fact South Carolina has Future I-73 signs and I wouldn't doubt other states indicate future interstates in similar manner.  Printing a few signs on wooden posts is not that much of a waste of resources.  The reason the states do it is to show that future plans are in place to improve the corridor; also helps spread the word for people that don't keep up with highway news that things are changing.
The Future I-74 signs along the US 74 Rockingham Bypass were taken down in late 2016. There are now no Future I-73 or I-74 shields up in NC, there are still green Future I-74 Corridor signs up in several places along US 52 and US 74, and small green signs with Future I-73 along US 220 north of NC 68 in Rockingham County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dustin DeWinn on April 15, 2018, 10:04:20 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) in Kinston is being extended from NC-58 to NC-11.

http://www.witn.com/content/news/Felix-Harvey-Parkway-being-extended-to-Highway-11-478676233.html (http://www.witn.com/content/news/Felix-Harvey-Parkway-being-extended-to-Highway-11-478676233.html)

Quote
Work is underway on a big highway project that is expected to benefit northern Lenoir County.

The Felix Harvey Parkway is being extended from Highway 58 near the Global TransPark over to Highway 11.

The $73.5 million project is being built by Branch Civil, Incorporated from Roanoke, Virginia.

The parkway will join Highway 11 just south of the DuPont plant, adding 5.8 miles of four-lane highway.

When completed in 2021, drivers will be able to take Felix Harvey Parkway from Highway 11 to where the road currently ends at U.S. 70 west of Kinston.

As a side note, as I live near Kinston, I take CF Harvey at least once a week and I was curious about these markers on the side of the road NEAR (but not IN) the construction area where every 100 feet or so, on the right shoulder, there are 3 stakes laid out in triangles and wrapped with pink fluorescent tape. IDK if this is a state thing or a national thing, but I made a few calls to see what they are/signify. Apparently its areas that have already been surveyed, though I don't know how they differ from the single stakes wrapped in the same ribbon....

Just thought I'd share because of my interest in highway markings and signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 22, 2018, 11:18:00 AM
I am very excited to hear this news. It is probably very highly needed, as I-26 may only be four lanes all the way to I-40, IIRC, and Asheville, NC is growing more and more. Hopefully the newly redone interchanges will turn out well (including the possible DDI).

Honestly, I don't think it would be a terrible idea if the entirety of Interstate 26 from Asheville, North Carolina to Charleston, South Carolina was widened to at least 6 lanes (especially I-26 between Columbia and I-95 needs this). I think this would really help both states, as Interstate 26 has a very high level of importance (especially for South Carolina). For now, widening this section of I-26 in North Carolina is a great start. I cannot wait to see the results!  :nod:

Yes, I-26 is only four lanes from I-40 to the South Carolina state line. For comparison, traffic volumes between I-40 and the airport are similar to I-85 between Kings Mountain and Gastonia and on the northern and southern sides of Salisbury. Not only has the area grown a lot, but there is a tremendous amount of vacation traffic funneled through there (both visitors to the area and mid-westerners bound for the beaches.

I don't foresee I-26 being widened all the way to the South Carolina state line any time soon, but truck climbing lanes would be a huge benefit, especially around Green River. I don't know if the numbers support it, but it seems like there are way more trucks than there were ten years ago. When loaded, they go about 25-35 mph up the westbound Green River grade. And speaking of Green River, both of those bridges are 50 years old and rated structurally deficient. Whenever they are replaced, I can't imagine they will leave it as four lanes.

The I-26 Connector through Asheville is also on the horizon. R/W and construction are scheduled to commence in 2020 for the I-26/I-40/I-240 interchange and new crossing of the French Broad (sections C and B, respectively). The I-240 widening still isn't funded yet.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 28, 2018, 06:40:47 PM
NCDOT is beginning construction to improve two off-ramps from I-40 in the Asheville area: the eastbound exit at Hendersonville Road (Exit 50) and the westbound exit at Sweeten Creek Road (Exit 51). The goal is to stop traffic from backing up onto the freeway during rush hour conditions.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15119
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 03, 2018, 03:27:20 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on May 10 to discuss widening NC-42 between US-70 Business in Clayton and NC-50.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15140 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15140)


Meanwhile, a stretch of NC-24 near Roseboro in Sampson County is closed until late August.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15143 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15143)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 04, 2018, 10:09:35 PM
Update on the I-85 reconstruction project between Henderson and the VA state line.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15159 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15159)

Quote
Work on the Interstate 85 improvement project in Vance and Warren counties is requiring a series of traffic shifts and closures this coming week.

On Monday, May 7, I-85 northbound traffic will shift on a median crossover just north of U.S. 1. Traffic will be in a one-lane pattern in each direction until the northbound traffic crosses back over to the original northbound lanes near Manson Road. This last shift will allow crews to build the final northbound section of I-85, expected to be completed by mid-November 2018.

This last phase of improvements will close a trio of northbound ramps. The I-85 off and on-ramps at Flemingtown Road (Exit 220), and the on-ramp at Manson Road (Exit 223) will reopen as the project finishes in the fall.

Flemingtown Road will close on Wednesday, May 9, for two days while crews demolish the I-85 northbound bridge. I-85 southbound traffic will not be impacted because the I-85 southbound off-ramp to Flemingtown and on-ramp from Flemingtown will remain open. Flemingtown Road traffic will be detoured via U.S. 158, Jacksontown Road, and Jackson-Royster Roads.

This work is part of a $137.3-million project to improve I-85 between Dabney Road in Vance County and the Virginia state line. The work involves repairing the deteriorating road surface, as well as bridge replacements and improvements.

The project has travelers in a single-lane pattern in both directions for a lengthy stretch. That makes it very important for drivers to slow down, avoid distractions, and leave extra space between their vehicle and the one in front of them for the safety of travelers and construction crews through the area.

For real-time travel information at any time, visit DriveNC.gov, or follow NCDOT on Twitter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on May 04, 2018, 10:11:25 PM
Just went through that area last Friday coming back from Lake Gaston.  Was a pain in the rear, but I got some signage shots at exit 218 (it opened up right before the exit)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 05, 2018, 10:37:55 PM
Are there any more detailed diagrams like this one (http://www.townofmaysville.org/vertical/sites/%7BC99BCE5E-24DC-4E57-B9EE-BD0D0435EC8B%7D/uploads/r2514b_US_17_Bypass_Map.pdf) of the US 17 upgrades and bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville? Despite being a pretty big upgrade, NCDOT doesn't seem to have a page for it. All I can find are news articles and a few simple maps breaking down the sections.

Will the upgraded sections of the existing road be made fully controlled-access freeways, or just the new alignment sections?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on May 07, 2018, 09:40:12 PM
Are there any more detailed diagrams like this one (http://www.townofmaysville.org/vertical/sites/%7BC99BCE5E-24DC-4E57-B9EE-BD0D0435EC8B%7D/uploads/r2514b_US_17_Bypass_Map.pdf) of the US 17 upgrades and bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville? Despite being a pretty big upgrade, NCDOT doesn't seem to have a page for it. All I can find are news articles and a few simple maps breaking down the sections.

Will the upgraded sections of the existing road be made fully controlled-access freeways, or just the new alignment sections?

Just the new alighnment sections I think. My house is 3 minutes from the southern end of this project, and in fact one of the prior plans was to go right through my neighborhood, so I’m very happy with the final decision lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on May 07, 2018, 11:43:50 PM
Are there any more detailed diagrams like this one (http://www.townofmaysville.org/vertical/sites/%7BC99BCE5E-24DC-4E57-B9EE-BD0D0435EC8B%7D/uploads/r2514b_US_17_Bypass_Map.pdf) of the US 17 upgrades and bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville? Despite being a pretty big upgrade, NCDOT doesn't seem to have a page for it. All I can find are news articles and a few simple maps breaking down the sections.

Will the upgraded sections of the existing road be made fully controlled-access freeways, or just the new alignment sections?

Just the new alighnment sections I think. My house is 3 minutes from the southern end of this project, and in fact one of the prior plans was to go right through my neighborhood, so I’m very happy with the final decision lol.

That's interesting. My house is approximately 3 minutes from the northern end of the project (well from the stoplight at US-17 and US-17 Business, anyway).

My understanding was that its supposed to be a 70 mph freeway from the existing New Bern Bypass in Craven County down to Maysville and 60 mph expressway from Maysville to the current 4 lane sections in Onslow County. I no longer remember where I read that, however. I will endeavor to try to find it again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 10, 2018, 06:13:38 AM
A second lawsuit has been filed regarding Greenville’s redlight cameras. If at first you don’t succeed...

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/05/10/Second-lawsuit-filed-against-red-light-cameras.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/05/10/Second-lawsuit-filed-against-red-light-cameras.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 10, 2018, 08:34:19 PM
Are there any more detailed diagrams like this one (http://www.townofmaysville.org/vertical/sites/%7BC99BCE5E-24DC-4E57-B9EE-BD0D0435EC8B%7D/uploads/r2514b_US_17_Bypass_Map.pdf) of the US 17 upgrades and bypasses around Maysville and Pollocksville? Despite being a pretty big upgrade, NCDOT doesn't seem to have a page for it. All I can find are news articles and a few simple maps breaking down the sections.

Will the upgraded sections of the existing road be made fully controlled-access freeways, or just the new alignment sections?

Here are the public hearing maps from 2012(?):
Section B (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2514B_rdy_phm_full.pdf)
Section C (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2514C_rdy_phm_full.pdf)
Section D (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R2514D_rdy_phm_full.pdf)

Really detailed plans can be found here (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven%20Jones%20R-2514D%20C203592/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 11, 2018, 08:50:56 AM
I don't foresee I-26 being widened all the way to the South Carolina state line any time soon, but truck climbing lanes would be a huge benefit, especially around Green River. I don't know if the numbers support it, but it seems like there are way more trucks than there were ten years ago. When loaded, they go about 25-35 mph up the westbound Green River grade. And speaking of Green River, both of those bridges are 50 years old and rated structurally deficient. Whenever they are replaced, I can't imagine they will leave it as four lanes.

It turns out both bridges are scheduled for bridge rehabilitation next year (15BPR.20). The preliminary estimate is $9.6 million, so it sounds like a fair bit of work.

NCDOT 12 MONTH LET LIST (APRIL 2018 0- MARCH 2019 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Archives/12%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(APRIL%202018%20-%20MARCH%202019).pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 11, 2018, 10:48:47 PM
The new Bonner Bridge will easily become the NC's most elegant and possibly the first (whether intentional or not) piece of infrastructure that ventured away from pure utilitarian aesthetics.

It might make the years of lawsuits worthwhile.

I'm loving the gentle arching shapes, and apparently their 350' spans combined will accommodate lots of shifting of the channel and sand requiring only the navigational markers to be moved over to the next span.

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with donations or voluntary toll contributions if people want to help.

Just like a single $5 toll at Va and SC borders on I-95 would be considered reasonable to interstate motorists and wouldn't affect in-state residents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 14, 2018, 02:57:56 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on May 17 to discuss converting the I-440/Wake Forest Road interchange in Raleigh to a DDI.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15190 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15190)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 14, 2018, 07:39:44 PM

It turns out both bridges are scheduled for bridge rehabilitation next year (15BPR.20). The preliminary estimate is $9.6 million, so it sounds like a fair bit of work.

NCDOT 12 MONTH LET LIST (APRIL 2018 0- MARCH 2019 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Archives/12%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(APRIL%202018%20-%20MARCH%202019).pdf)

Wow. I count nine major design-build projects scheduled for letting in the coming 12 months:

June 19: I-40 widening, I-440 to NC 42, 12.8 mi, $269.1 million

July 17: I-485 rebuild, I-77 to NC 74; 17.52 mi, $322.9 million
July 17: I-74/US 52 interchange in Winston-Salem; 2.6 mi, $113.0 million
July 17: I-440 rebuild, Wade Avenue to I-40; 6 mi, $254.5 million

Sep. 18: I-40/I-77 interchange Phase II, 3.6 mi, $214.2 million
Sep. 18: Mid-Currituck Bridge; 9.9 mi, $414.7 million (tollway)

Nov. 20: NC 540, US 401 to I-40; 8.7 mi, $465.3 million (tollway)

Jan. 15: US 70 (Future I-42) in James City; 11.1 mi, $147.5 million

Mar. 19: NC 540 Holly Springs Road to US 401; $239.2 million (tollway)

That's approximately $2.44 billion in major projects, including $1.12 billion toll-funded and $1.32 billion tax-funded.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 14, 2018, 08:32:16 PM
I have heard that the 485  rebuild will have median HOT lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 14, 2018, 10:19:15 PM
Sep. 18: I-40/I-77 interchange Phase II, 3.6 mi, $214.2 million

Glad to see the next phase of that interchange rebuild happening. :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 15, 2018, 07:55:06 AM
I have heard that the 485  rebuild will have median HOT lanes.

Yep, the lanes already exist between I-77 and Johnston Road now, just not used yet for anything.  The plans will be to have toll lanes from I-77 to US 74 (southeast section) and build the Weddington Road exit.  The tolls will be operated by NCDOT, so no controversy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2018, 09:23:40 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting in New Bern on May 21 to discuss the extension of NC-43 from US-70/US-17 to US-17 Business.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15201 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15201)

Maps:

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-4463A_RDY_PHM_PSH01.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-4463A_RDY_PHM_PSH01.pdf)

https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-4463A_RDY_PHM_PSH02.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/download/projects/publichearings/R-4463A_RDY_PHM_PSH02.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on May 17, 2018, 09:53:47 AM
I have heard that the 485  rebuild will have median HOT lanes.

Yep, the lanes already exist between I-77 and Johnston Road now, just not used yet for anything.  The plans will be to have toll lanes from I-77 to US 74 (southeast section) and build the Weddington Road exit.  The tolls will be operated by NCDOT, so no controversy.

What that section really needs is 3 lanes on the outer side between US 521 and US 74. The lane drop at Rea Rd creates backups all the time due to the entrance ramp from 521 merging into the lane that ends a mile ahead, causing most cars to have to cut across 2 lanes. I was just in traffic there yesterday and it could easily be solved by extending the 3rd lane past the Rea Rd exit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0649823,-80.8391473,3a,98.8y,83.2h,78.74t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svnGporsfGm_EJUa2XUo_bA!2e0

The ending lane you see on the right is from the 521 entrance ramp, and you can see the sign for Rea Rd as "Exit Only". It makes no sense why they would design it like that. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2018, 05:26:26 PM
NCDOT has selected a preferred alternative for the US-158 widening project between US-421/Business 40 in Winston-Salem and I-73/US-220 just north of Summerfield.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15228 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15228)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2018, 02:22:25 PM
NCDOT will soon be taking public comments in preparation for the upcoming draft 2020-2029 STIP. Comment period is from June 4-July 9.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15242 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15242)

EDIT: Interactive map can be found here: https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2020-2029.html (https://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/2020-2029.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 25, 2018, 03:09:39 PM
A public meeting is being held on June 5 in Barco to discuss widening US-158 between NC-34 in Camden County and NC-168 in Currituck County.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15249 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15249)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2018, 05:06:38 PM
AASHTO approved three items this week submitted by NCDOT.

Here is the paperwork: https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/004_USRN_Part-3-NC-OK.pdf (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/004_USRN_Part-3-NC-OK.pdf)

My thoughts... US 311 is shown longer in Randolph County than it actually is, currently it is concurrent with I-74 till exit 84, not exit 79. What remains of US 311 should probably become a state highway as well.  It's interesting how the AASHTO committee was concern if US 52 will be abandoned or concurrent; I'm guessing it will be together since it didn't mention moving US 52 anywhere.  Why didn't they request I-140 extended east of I-40 as well?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 25, 2018, 07:09:43 PM
It's interesting how the AASHTO committee was concern if US 52 will be abandoned or concurrent; I'm guessing it will be together since it didn't mention moving US 52 anywhere.

Probably. I’m surprised there was even an application for I-285 at all since FHWA had already signed off on it back in February. NCDOT got FHWA approval to sign the Knightdale Bypass as I-87 and did so, yet they never submitted an application to AASHTO for it.

Quote
Why didn't they request I-140 extended east of I-40 as well?

Yeah, that doesn’t make sense to leave out that short stretch. The only explanation I can think of is perhaps they want I-140 to follow the future Hampstead Bypass. :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on May 25, 2018, 09:55:01 PM
Now combining US 360 and US 311 makes even more sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 25, 2018, 09:59:45 PM
Now combining US 360 and US 311 makes even more sense.

I believe Virginia needs to make the move on that, and that state doesn't care much for highway numbers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 25, 2018, 11:09:39 PM
Now combining US 360 and US 311 makes even more sense.

I believe Virginia needs to make the move on that, and that state doesn't care much for highway numbers.

Not sure why Virginia would care.  They would do so if North Carolina requested it which is how we got US 311 back into Virginia in the first place...

http://www.ctb.virginia.gov/resources/2012/july/pres/Resolution_Agenda_Item_4_rte311_transfer_CTBresolution_July18_12rev.pdf

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2018, 12:14:42 AM
A neighborhood in Surf City is charging a $5 toll on Cedar Avenue...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212029334.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212029334.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on May 29, 2018, 01:52:43 AM
A neighborhood in Surf City is charging a $5 toll on Cedar Avenue...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212029334.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article212029334.html)

Too damn funny  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 29, 2018, 02:55:38 PM
Would any other posters like to toll other drivers on the streets they reside on, in order to keep them away?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MNHighwayMan on May 29, 2018, 04:04:07 PM
No, because my residence is on a public street. Perhaps you missed the part in the article where they mention Cedar Ave is a private street, and as such they're more than welcome to charge what they please for other people to use it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on May 29, 2018, 10:27:30 PM
[tweet]1001645422744690688[/tweet]


Mudslides are currently affecting I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on May 30, 2018, 07:14:48 AM
https://twitter.com/ariel_plasencia/status/1001761267705663488?s=21


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on May 30, 2018, 08:03:34 AM
https://instagram.com/p/BjZW4q_l6OL/


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mppheel on June 04, 2018, 10:41:03 PM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2018, 03:59:46 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

I looked on NCDOT’s progress report page for Wilson and Nash counties and I didn’t see anything related to US-264. I would say that they’re preparing for roadwork, but none of the I-587 corridor was included in the 2018-2027 STIP, so I’m not sure what the deal is. :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on June 05, 2018, 08:47:00 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 10:13:33 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore
The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).

After a few decades of growth trees can encroach too close to the roadways, and it is appropriate to do some tree removal to restore about 20 to 25 feet of clear roadside.  But I can't see clearing the whole median unless it is narrow enough to interfere with the distances above.

How wide are these medians?  Up to about 60 or 70 feet it may be justified to have no trees.  Medians 100 feet or wider should be able to accomodate trees in the middle.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2018, 11:19:05 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore
The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).

After a few decades of growth trees can encroach too close to the roadways, and it is appropriate to do some tree removal to restore about 20 to 25 feet of clear roadside.  But I can't see clearing the whole median unless it is narrow enough to interfere with the distances above.

How wide are these medians?  Up to about 60 or 70 feet it may be justified to have no trees.  Medians 100 feet or wider should be able to accomodate trees in the middle.

There’s a really wide stretch of median on US-264 just east of Middlesex.

https://goo.gl/maps/NDDU3e6EhkK2 (https://goo.gl/maps/NDDU3e6EhkK2)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 02:13:17 PM
After a few decades of growth trees can encroach too close to the roadways, and it is appropriate to do some tree removal to restore about 20 to 25 feet of clear roadside.  But I can't see clearing the whole median unless it is narrow enough to interfere with the distances above.
How wide are these medians?  Up to about 60 or 70 feet it may be justified to have no trees.  Medians 100 feet or wider should be able to accomodate trees in the middle.
There’s a really wide stretch of median on US-264 just east of Middlesex.
https://goo.gl/maps/NDDU3e6EhkK2 (https://goo.gl/maps/NDDU3e6EhkK2)

Over 500 feet wide.  Are they clearing out the trees there?
One half mile west of there the median is about 60 feet wide and has no trees.
Where are they clearing out all the trees?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 05, 2018, 04:19:45 PM
As the widening of I-85 in Rowan and Cabarrus Counties nears completion, NCDOT has opened the new overpass carrying Centergrove Road over the expressway.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15302
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 05, 2018, 06:44:48 PM
A judge has dismissed an environmental group's suit, clearing the way for construction to begin on "jug-handle" bridge carrying NC 12 around the chronically flooded section just north of Rodanthe on the Outer Banks.
https://www.wral.com/judge-clears-way-for-new-outer-banks-bridge/17606156/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 05, 2018, 08:15:00 PM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).

Wonder if this would ever lead to Virginia clearing the long tree medians along I-85 and I-64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 05, 2018, 09:06:54 PM
As the widening of I-85 in Rowan and Cabarrus Counties nears completion, NCDOT has opened the new overpass carrying Centergrove Road over the expressway.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15302

Wait, doesn’t this project go all the way up to the China Grove exit, or am I just off on my mile numbers?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 05, 2018, 09:14:09 PM
The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).
Wonder if this would ever lead to Virginia clearing the long tree medians along I-85 and I-64.

I certainly hope not.  Many places they are 100 to 200 feet or more wide.  Other than ensuring 20 to 25 feet of clear roadside, there is no other safety justification for clearing trees.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on June 05, 2018, 09:50:32 PM
The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).
Wonder if this would ever lead to Virginia clearing the long tree medians along I-85 and I-64.

I certainly hope not.  Many places they are 100 to 200 feet or more wide.  Other than ensuring 20 to 25 feet of clear roadside, there is no other safety justification for clearing trees.

Agreed, both Interstates would be completely unrecognizable, and not for the better. If NC really is clearing the entire wide tree median on US-264/I-587, could it perhaps be for a new rest stop similar to the recently completed one in the median of I-77?
 https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9017511,-80.8565064,1486m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on June 06, 2018, 04:22:34 AM
As the widening of I-85 in Rowan and Cabarrus Counties nears completion, NCDOT has opened the new overpass carrying Centergrove Road over the expressway.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15302

Wait, doesn’t this project go all the way up to the China Grove exit, or am I just off on my mile numbers?
It does. Centergrove Rd is mm 61.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2018, 06:03:57 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).


What's happening in South Carolina got mentioned last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203183#msg2203183) (see Billy's post and my follow-up).  In short, SCDOT is clearing those trees from I-95 because over 40% of the fatalities and injuries on that stretch were the result of drivers hitting trees.

-----------------------

Meanwhile, it was announced yesterday (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that North Carolina won a Federal grant that will widen parts of I-95 on both sides of the Fayetteville bypass (north to around Dunn and south to Lumberton) as well as upgrading US 70 to Interstate-grade from Selma to Princeton and from New Bern to Havelock.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 06, 2018, 06:22:26 AM
What's happening in South Carolina got mentioned last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203183#msg2203183) (see Billy's post and my follow-up).  In short, SCDOT is clearing those trees from I-95 because over 40% of the fatalities and injuries on that stretch were the result of drivers hitting trees.

"establish a 55 foot clear zone along the outside shoulder and median in both the northbound and southbound directions"

If that is 55 feet on each side of a directional roadway, then that is wastful, IMO.   30 feet is recognized by historical safety studies as being sufficient to prevent virtually all such potential impacts.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on June 06, 2018, 09:15:30 AM
What's happening in South Carolina got mentioned last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203183#msg2203183) (see Billy's post and my follow-up).  In short, SCDOT is clearing those trees from I-95 because over 40% of the fatalities and injuries on that stretch were the result of drivers hitting trees.

"establish a 55 foot clear zone along the outside shoulder and median in both the northbound and southbound directions"

If that is 55 feet on each side of a directional roadway, then that is wastful, IMO.   30 feet is recognized by historical safety studies as being sufficient to prevent virtually all such potential impacts.

The I-95 median not far north of the Georgia line is about 100 feet wide -- so by the 55-foot rule, ALL the trees must go away. It would make more sense to clear the trees closest to the road and put up guardrail to prevent most people from hitting a tree (and it would be better for the environment).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 06, 2018, 09:50:42 AM
If that is 55 feet on each side of a directional roadway, then that is wastful, IMO.   30 feet is recognized by historical safety studies as being sufficient to prevent virtually all such potential impacts.
The I-95 median not far north of the Georgia line is about 100 feet wide -- so by the 55-foot rule, ALL the trees must go away. It would make more sense to clear the trees closest to the road and put up guardrail to prevent most people from hitting a tree (and it would be better for the environment).

Looks much better too, retaining as many trees as possible, and it helps to block headlight glare from oncoming vehicles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 06, 2018, 03:11:42 PM
What's happening in South Carolina got mentioned last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203183#msg2203183) (see Billy's post and my follow-up).  In short, SCDOT is clearing those trees from I-95 because over 40% of the fatalities and injuries on that stretch were the result of drivers hitting trees.

"establish a 55 foot clear zone along the outside shoulder and median in both the northbound and southbound directions"

If that is 55 feet on each side of a directional roadway, then that is wastful, IMO.   30 feet is recognized by historical safety studies as being sufficient to prevent virtually all such potential impacts.

Years ago, an engineer with MDOT (Mississippi) told me that FHWA desired a 70' clear zone.  Subsequent to this, acres of trees were mowed from the I-59 median in the state, though many of these trees were less than 10 feet from the inside shoulder edge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 06, 2018, 04:19:08 PM
If that is 55 feet on each side of a directional roadway, then that is wastful, IMO.   30 feet is recognized by historical safety studies as being sufficient to prevent virtually all such potential impacts.
Years ago, an engineer with MDOT (Mississippi) told me that FHWA desired a 70' clear zone.  Subsequent to this, acres of trees were mowed from the I-59 median in the state, though many of these trees were less than 10 feet from the inside shoulder edge.

I would have to disagree with him, based on my "years ago" roadway design experience.  30 feet is the maximum that I ever saw recommended.  I don't know of any recommendations for 55 or 70 feet, and few if any instances of seeing any clear roadside that wide.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 06, 2018, 05:00:18 PM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

The same thing is happening on I-95 in South Carolina -- large swaths of trees are being clear-cut from the median. When questioned elsewhere here, someone said it is a federal mandate that medians be cleared in the name of "safety" (although it doesn't make sense to remove beneficial trees around highways).

Wonder if this would ever lead to Virginia clearing the long tree medians along I-85 and I-64.

I was wondering the same thing during a drive on I-85 through Virginia last month. I noticed a lot of stretches have guardrail, and others do not, depending on the adjacent slope . I'm not sure what impact that has, if any, on the clearance requirement. You're talking millions of dollars in tree removal and grubbing. I wonder if it would be cheaper to install guardrail and achieve the same thing?

Random example from Google. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8270197,-77.9481601,3a,90y,55.68h,95.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szBHa3FoKiIYglucwL-VVuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 06, 2018, 08:58:00 PM
I was wondering the same thing during a drive on I-85 through Virginia last month. I noticed a lot of stretches have guardrail, and others do not, depending on the adjacent slope . I'm not sure what impact that has, if any, on the clearance requirement. You're talking millions of dollars in tree removal and grubbing. I wonder if it would be cheaper to install guardrail and achieve the same thing?
Random example from Google. (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8270197,-77.9481601,3a,90y,55.68h,95.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szBHa3FoKiIYglucwL-VVuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Very typical cross-section for VA I-85.  Mid-1960s design, about 25 feet clear roadside on the right and about 15 feet on the left.  Fill slopes steep enough to require guardrail, treeline begins at top of cut slope, which you can see there.  Unless they are going to flatten and widen the slopes, IMHO they should leave the trees alone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 08, 2018, 04:48:22 PM
Meanwhile, it was announced yesterday (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article212607139.html) that North Carolina won a Federal grant that will widen parts of I-95 on both sides of the Fayetteville bypass (north to around Dunn and south to Lumberton) as well as upgrading US 70 to Interstate-grade from Selma to Princeton and from New Bern to Havelock.

Here’s NCDOT’s press release, which contains a link to the project page:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15330 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15330)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 11, 2018, 06:44:53 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 11, 2018, 07:02:34 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.
Forgot the link: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15338
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 12, 2018, 12:01:07 AM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.

As someone who encounters this interchange 4 times a day, I am disgusted.  "Input from business"  , I bet Days Inn threatened a lawsuit or the $18mil construction/$27 mil ROW cost for the SPUI was a non starter.  The last iteration that was worth a darn was the SPUI design we saw last fall.  There is so much left turn traffic at every leg of this junction.....there is sooo much fail here.  Please tell me that at least they are keeping the aux lanes on 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  I am really shamed at the watering down this project has taken in the last 24 months.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 12, 2018, 10:42:37 AM
The General Assembly is preparing to vote on something called the Build NC Bond Act. If I understand it correctly the act authorizes NCDOT to borrow money against future federal revenues in order to keep highway projects in the STIP ten-year plan on schedule if gas tax revenues become insufficient.

Here's one description of the plan: http://www.tarpo.org/2018/05/17/bill-draft-for-proposed-build-nc-bond-act/

The bill is sponsored by Republicans, which means it is very likely to pass. However, some conservative groups are opposing it, saying voters should be allowed to decide on new state indebtedness.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 12, 2018, 11:30:47 AM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.

As someone who encounters this interchange 4 times a day, I am disgusted.  "Input from business"  , I bet Days Inn threatened a lawsuit or the $18mil construction/$27 mil ROW cost for the SPUI was a non starter.  The last iteration that was worth a darn was the SPUI design we saw last fall.  There is so much left turn traffic at every leg of this junction.....there is sooo much fail here.  Please tell me that at least they are keeping the aux lanes on 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  I am really shamed at the watering down this project has taken in the last 24 months.

I don't think they are keeping the aux lanes on I-40 between Enola Rd. and 64. I just zoomed close to the map and nope. Doesn't look like this way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 12, 2018, 04:09:29 PM
The General Assembly is preparing to vote on something called the Build NC Bond Act. If I understand it correctly the act authorizes NCDOT to borrow money against future federal revenues in order to keep highway projects in the STIP ten-year plan on schedule if gas tax revenues become insufficient.

Here's one description of the plan: http://www.tarpo.org/2018/05/17/bill-draft-for-proposed-build-nc-bond-act/

The bill is sponsored by Republicans, which means it is very likely to pass. However, some conservative groups are opposing it, saying voters should be allowed to decide on new state indebtedness.

The General Assembly passed it. It’s headed to Gov. Cooper’s desk.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213022929.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213022929.html)

The US-70 Corridor Commission has also shown it’s support for it.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Build-NC-Resolution.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Build-NC-Resolution.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 12, 2018, 10:27:40 PM
The General Assembly is preparing to vote on something called the Build NC Bond Act. If I understand it correctly the act authorizes NCDOT to borrow money against future federal revenues in order to keep highway projects in the STIP ten-year plan on schedule if gas tax revenues become insufficient.

Here's one description of the plan: http://www.tarpo.org/2018/05/17/bill-draft-for-proposed-build-nc-bond-act/

The bill is sponsored by Republicans, which means it is very likely to pass. However, some conservative groups are opposing it, saying voters should be allowed to decide on new state indebtedness.

The General Assembly passed it. It’s headed to Gov. Cooper’s desk.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213022929.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article213022929.html)

The US-70 Corridor Commission has also shown it’s support for it.

http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Build-NC-Resolution.pdf (http://www.super70corridor.com/wp-content/uploads/Build-NC-Resolution.pdf)
NCDOT's press release about the Build NC bill headed to the governor's desk:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: brownpelican on June 15, 2018, 11:01:57 PM
The state Senate passed an amendment today that would have removed the tolls (http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article213238234.html) from the Interstate 77 widening project in Mecklenburg County. The House, however, wasn't on board and says there hasn't been much communication from Senate leaders.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on June 16, 2018, 12:24:34 PM
I just wish they’d hurry up and finish the 77 widening. Traffic was backed up in both directions between Huntersville and Mooresville this morning.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 18, 2018, 08:10:56 AM
The last few times I drove from Greenville to Raleigh on US 264 / I-587 I noticed the beautiful wooded median full of trees between Wilson and Zebulon is being cleared.  Does anyone know what they are doing, and to what extent they will clear it?  That, to me, was one of the prettiest stretches of highway around.  You don't see many medians that wide anymore

Here’s yesterday’s article from Wilson’s newspaper talking about it:

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/safety-at-the-heart-of-tree-clearing-on-us-264,130341 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/safety-at-the-heart-of-tree-clearing-on-us-264,130341)

Quote
It’s hard to ignore the removal of hundreds of trees along the U.S. 264 corridor in Nash County, but N.C. Department of Transportation officials said it’s all an effort to improve safety and visibility.

“The project is intended to accomplish several goals. Primarily, this is a safety clearing project that will serve to maintain the clear recovery zone by pushing the treeline back along that section of roadway,”  said Byron Bateman, a roadside environmental engineer with the N.C. Department of Transportation. “The clear recovery zone is an area without fixed objects that is adjacent to a highway and intended to provide safe passage and a recovery area for vehicles that veer off the roadway.”

Trees are being cleared just west of U.S. 264’s junction with N.C. 581 near Bailey to a point just east of the Nash-Wake county line.

Crews from Sawyer’s Land Developing in Belhaven began the $490,000 project in April and are slated to wrap up work later this month.

“(This project) will also eliminate a number of trees and limbs that could potentially fall into the roadway during hurricanes, snow and ice events, or even strong thunderstorms,”  Bateman said. “Lastly, it will daylight roadway throughout the project area, particularly on the eastern and western ends of the project area, so that ice and snow will melt more quickly in chronic trouble spots when we have those events.”

Officials considered various environmental aspects when planning began for the project and Bateman said there will be no effect on streams, wetlands or riparian buffers.

“The vast majority of the wooded median will remain intact and undisturbed,”  he said.

Once the trees are removed, the contractor will sell the marketable timber.

“This provision likely got us a better price on the tree-clearing work as well, since the contractor was able to market a commodity that may have been burned or gone to a landfill in the past,”  Bateman said.

The N.C. Department of Transportation plans to plant some native trees and shrubs in the project area as well as low-maintenance turfgrass once the project is complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 18, 2018, 06:31:51 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the diamond interchange of I-85 with Main Street in Archduke (Exit 111) with a DDI. Construction is scheduled for 2021.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15373
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 19, 2018, 02:04:14 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting in Apex on June 21 to discuss superstreet-ing US-64 from just west of Laura Duncan Road in Apex to US-1 in Cary.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15357 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15357)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 19, 2018, 06:24:06 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the diamond interchange of I-85 with Main Street in Archduke (Exit 111) with a DDI. Construction is scheduled for 2021.
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15373
Archdale, darn it, not Archduke. I hate autocorrect.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 19, 2018, 06:45:40 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting in Apex on June 21 to discuss superstreet-ing US-64 from just west of Laura Duncan Road in Apex to US-1 in Cary.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15357 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15357)
This is partly a super street plan, but in addition there are diamond interchanges at Laura Duncan and Lake Pine. It's more of an "urban expressway" plan. Worth a careful look.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2018, 05:35:56 AM
NCDOT's press release about the Build NC bill headed to the governor's desk:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350)

Gov. Cooper is signing the bill this afternoon.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15378 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15378)

EDIT: It’s now law.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 20, 2018, 12:07:06 PM
NCDOT will be holding an open house for the public to view changes to the design plan for the southern segment of the Fayetteville Outer Loop from I-95 to Camden Road (includes link to updated design map) on June 26:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15380 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15380)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 20, 2018, 04:53:06 PM
NCDOT's press release about the Build NC bill headed to the governor's desk:
https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350)

Gov. Cooper is signing the bill this afternoon.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15378 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15378)

EDIT: It’s now law.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15350)

Quote
Under Gov. Cooper’s direction, the N.C. Department of Transportation has accelerated 350 highway projects and made room for an additional 144 projects in the current 2018-2027 transportation plan.

Has anyone seen that list of projects yet?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 20, 2018, 04:59:39 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.

As someone who encounters this interchange 4 times a day, I am disgusted.  "Input from business"  , I bet Days Inn threatened a lawsuit or the $18mil construction/$27 mil ROW cost for the SPUI was a non starter.  The last iteration that was worth a darn was the SPUI design we saw last fall.  There is so much left turn traffic at every leg of this junction.....there is sooo much fail here.  Please tell me that at least they are keeping the aux lanes on 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  I am really shamed at the watering down this project has taken in the last 24 months.

Was a SPUI ever considered? The only other options I saw from the public meeting maps were the loop that would have wiped out the trailer park and Days Inn, and the DDI. With RoW at a premium at this location, you'd think a SPUI would have been the best option.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 20, 2018, 06:35:42 PM
NCDOT has announced it will replace the tight diamond interchange on I-40 at US 64 in Morganton with -- wait for it -- another tight diamond. On the bright side, there will be a new bridge over I-40, there will no longer be a surface street intersecting with the eastbound entrance ramp, and the intersection of US 64 with Ross Street will be pushed away from I-40.

As someone who encounters this interchange 4 times a day, I am disgusted.  "Input from business"  , I bet Days Inn threatened a lawsuit or the $18mil construction/$27 mil ROW cost for the SPUI was a non starter.  The last iteration that was worth a darn was the SPUI design we saw last fall.  There is so much left turn traffic at every leg of this junction.....there is sooo much fail here.  Please tell me that at least they are keeping the aux lanes on 40 between Enola Rd and 64.  I am really shamed at the watering down this project has taken in the last 24 months.

Was a SPUI ever considered? The only other options I saw from the public meeting maps were the loop that would have wiped out the trailer park and Days Inn, and the DDI. With RoW at a premium at this location, you'd think a SPUI would have been the best option.
Seems like a perfect place for a SPUI.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 20, 2018, 08:20:15 PM
I was able to view the SPUI plans on their website within the last 90 days.  It showed total demolition of everything on the west side of Burkemont from the community college intersection to the Lowe's entrance.  2 Lane exit and entrance ramps with aux lanes back to Enola Rd.  Double Lefts from Burkemont with 3 through lanes on Burkemont.  The only substandard issue was tight radii right ramps from 40w to Burkemont North and Burkemont n to 40 e.  This was due to an historic site behind the Carl's Jr and a substation behind the Exxon, both of which were to be demolished as well.  This final design will not cut it in 5 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 22, 2018, 01:03:25 PM
A public meeting is being held in Morrisville on June 25 to discuss widening NC-54 between Shiloh Glenn Drive and Perimeter Park Drive, with additional turn lanes thrown in for good measure.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15353 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15353)

––

In other Triangle area news, the DCHC MPO and NCDOT will hold a public meeting in Durham on June 26 to discuss the “Reimagining 15/501”  corridor study.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15354 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15354)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 22, 2018, 09:40:25 PM
There’s a meeting in Wilmington on June 25 to discuss converting the Eastwood Rd/Military Cutoff Rd intersection to an interchange.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15391 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15391)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on June 23, 2018, 08:31:04 PM
I was driving Waterfalls Rd in Caldwell County which is an old alignment of US 321 south of Blowing Rock this afternoon. I found an abandoned section near the bottom of the mountain that curved back to the north and the current alignment of 321. Waterfalls Rd turned to gravel at this point and I had to use it and Kirby Mountain Rd to get back to 321 at the base of the mountain north of Lenoir. I’ll have to go back and check it out this winter when it isn’t quite so overgrown. https://photos.app.goo.gl/tXKFwY84MRYjMnk28


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 25, 2018, 09:18:34 PM
When one looks at the project score, at what score does a project become a definite?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on June 25, 2018, 11:01:30 PM
I was driving Waterfalls Rd in Caldwell County which is an old alignment of US 321 south of Blowing Rock this afternoon. I found an abandoned section near the bottom of the mountain that curved back to the north and the current alignment of 321. Waterfalls Rd turned to gravel at this point and I had to use it and Kirby Mountain Rd to get back to 321 at the base of the mountain north of Lenoir. I’ll have to go back and check it out this winter when it isn’t quite so overgrown. https://photos.app.goo.gl/tXKFwY84MRYjMnk28


iPhone

If it's where I think it is around where the pavement ends, that was likely a construction entrance when they were 4-laning that stretch of 321 around 2000.  They did a lot of work on that slope prior to blasting the area above.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on June 27, 2018, 11:19:13 AM
It was where the pavement ended. Thanks!


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on June 28, 2018, 03:15:02 PM
Video detailing on the I-485 express lanes project and other future express lanes projects that could come in the near future...

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 28, 2018, 04:10:21 PM
The CSX rail/truck intermodal cargo hub near Rocky Mount is back on, with definite construction plans announced, but it will be less than half the size of the facility previously discussed. NCDOT will put in even more money, some $118 million for road development. 1300 jobs will be created.
https://www.wral.com/downsized-csx-cargo-hub-on-track-in-rocky-mount/17662027/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 28, 2018, 08:10:20 PM
The CSX rail/truck intermodal cargo hub near Rocky Mount is back on, with definite construction plans announced, but it will be less than half the size of the facility previously discussed. NCDOT will put in even more money, some $118 million for road development. 1300 jobs will be created.
https://www.wral.com/downsized-csx-cargo-hub-on-track-in-rocky-mount/17662027/

Not surprised to see it back in some form; the original plans were back-burnered when Hunter Harrison (a notorious cost-cutter) was CEO; after his passing, it seems a number of CSX expansion initiatives have been reactivated by his successor.  Given its location as a collection point for NC ports to the CSX N-S main line, it was a "natural".  With the downturn in coal shipments, CSX (as well as competitor NS) is becoming increasingly more dependent upon distribution of containerized cargo -- and will likely increase capital expenditures on means of facilitating such. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 28, 2018, 10:06:13 PM
The CSX rail/truck intermodal cargo hub near Rocky Mount is back on, with definite construction plans announced, but it will be less than half the size of the facility previously discussed. NCDOT will put in even more money, some $118 million for road development. 1300 jobs will be created.
https://www.wral.com/downsized-csx-cargo-hub-on-track-in-rocky-mount/17662027/

Here’s the press release from NCDOT, which includes a map showing exactly where the hub will be located:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15414 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15414)

Even at a smaller size, this is still very welcome news for Rocky Mount & eastern NC. Nice to see jobs coming to areas of the state that actually need them for a change.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 29, 2018, 12:37:30 AM
The CSX rail/truck intermodal cargo hub near Rocky Mount is back on, with definite construction plans announced, but it will be less than half the size of the facility previously discussed. NCDOT will put in even more money, some $118 million for road development. 1300 jobs will be created.
https://www.wral.com/downsized-csx-cargo-hub-on-track-in-rocky-mount/17662027/

Here’s the press release from NCDOT, which includes a map showing exactly where the hub will be located:

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15414 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15414)

Even at a smaller size, this is still very welcome news for Rocky Mount & eastern NC. Nice to see jobs coming to areas of the state that actually need them for a change.

From the map shown it looks as if NC 4 will be extended so that it directly serves the new facility, providing a direct I-95 connection.  If it functions as described -- a "traditional" container terminal, it'll likely work in two ways -- transferring from trucks to trains (presumably to supply containers from ports lacking CSX trackage, such as Morehead City, served by NS, as well as outbound containers filled within the region) -- but also the inverse -- offloading trains from major centralized ports (Wilmington, Savannah, and Jacksonville to the south and pretty much any major port city to the north, including Norfolk) onto trucks for local destinations -- with a relatively booming NC economy, this would likely be a given. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on June 29, 2018, 11:37:05 AM
Video detailing on the I-485 express lanes project and other future express lanes projects that could come in the near future...


"Could" being the key word. NCDOT postponed a meetingon doing this last yeat, it sat awkwardly on the Public Meetings page for over a year, and has never been rescheduled. MUMPO still lists the project as beginning later this year at last check but it does not look like that milestone is gonna happen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 02, 2018, 06:39:09 AM
Tolls are going up on the Southport-Fort Fisher ferry.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15425 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15425)

Quote
WILMINGTON — The North Carolina Board of Transportation Thursday approved a request from the Cape Fear Rural Planning Organization and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization to increase tolls on the N.C. Ferry System’s Southport-Fort Fisher ferry route.

The toll for a vehicle less than 20 feet in length will go from $5 to $7, tolls for vehicles between 20 feet and 40 feet will go from $10 to $14, and tolls for vehicles larger than 40 feet will go from $15 to $28. However, the toll increase will not affect commuter passes, which will remain at $150 per year. Tolls for pedestrians, bikes and motorcycles will remain the same.

Under a law passed by the General Assembly in 2013, all toll changes must be requested by local transportation planning organizations and approved by the Board of Transportation. Revenue raised by a tolled route automatically goes into a Vessel Replacement Fund for that specific route.

The new tolls will take effect August 15.

This is the first toll increase on any ferry route since 2002. The fare increase does not affect fares for any other ferry route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on July 02, 2018, 02:21:44 PM
The cynic in me says thinks putting roundabouts on NC 218 is a way to get people to use the 74 toll bypass of Monroe when it opens. https://twitter.com/unioncountync/status/1013835962105913344?s=12


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on July 02, 2018, 11:43:22 PM
Ok so did NCDOT decide NOT to suspend unnecessary lane closures during this holiday week like SCDOT and other state DOTs have wisely chosen to do?  I got stuck on 77 north in Uptown Charlotte briefly tonight for the usual overnight 3-lane closure that I usually beat every night, which I was not expecting.  Or is this project exempt due to the fact that this stretch of 77 was sold out in the name of private toll revenue?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 03, 2018, 06:14:46 AM
Ok so did NCDOT decide NOT to suspend unnecessary lane closures during this holiday week like SCDOT and other state DOTs have wisely chosen to do?  I got stuck on 77 north in Uptown Charlotte briefly tonight for the usual overnight 3-lane closure that I usually beat every night, which I was not expecting.  Or is this project exempt due to the fact that this stretch of 77 was sold out in the name of private toll revenue?


NCDOT's holiday suspension of road closures begins today - https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15430
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 03, 2018, 08:07:44 AM
The latest in the fight against Greenville’s red light cameras:

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/07/03/Lawsuit-against-city-red-light-camera-program-divides-into-two-cases.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/07/03/Lawsuit-against-city-red-light-camera-program-divides-into-two-cases.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 04, 2018, 07:12:50 AM
Ok so did NCDOT decide NOT to suspend unnecessary lane closures during this holiday week like SCDOT and other state DOTs have wisely chosen to do?  I got stuck on 77 north in Uptown Charlotte briefly tonight for the usual overnight 3-lane closure that I usually beat every night, which I was not expecting.  Or is this project exempt due to the fact that this stretch of 77 was sold out in the name of private toll revenue?


NCDOT's holiday suspension of road closures begins today - https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15430

Stopping projects for only July 3-5 is pretty useless, since the majority of people are traveling the weekends before and after. I-26 was backed up six miles from Columbus into South Carolina last Saturday due to a lane closure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 05, 2018, 06:38:25 PM
Ok so did NCDOT decide NOT to suspend unnecessary lane closures during this holiday week like SCDOT and other state DOTs have wisely chosen to do?  I got stuck on 77 north in Uptown Charlotte briefly tonight for the usual overnight 3-lane closure that I usually beat every night, which I was not expecting.  Or is this project exempt due to the fact that this stretch of 77 was sold out in the name of private toll revenue?


NCDOT's holiday suspension of road closures begins today - https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15430

Stopping projects for only July 3-5 is pretty useless, since the majority of people are traveling the weekends before and after. I-26 was backed up six miles from Columbus into South Carolina last Saturday due to a lane closure.
This is an unfortunate consequence of the Fourth falling on a Wednesday. NCDOT doesn't want to stop construction for the whole week and both weekends: that would be a big hole in construction time right in the middle of the season. .
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 06, 2018, 04:06:43 PM
A public meeting is being held near La Grange on July 10 to discuss widening US-258 between the Harvey Parkway and Browntown Road.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15452 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15452)

Also, a contract has been awarded to replace the NC-42 bridge over the Tar River in Edgecombe County. Completion set for 2020.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15453 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15453)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 09, 2018, 11:13:03 PM
NCDOT is holding public meetings on July 10 & 11 to discuss improvements to NC-54 between US-15/501 in Chapel Hill and NC-55 in Durham.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418)


Meanwhile in the Charlotte metro, NCDOT & NCTA are holding meetings on July 25 & 26 to discuss the proposed express lanes for I-485 between I-77 near Pineville and US-74 (Independence Blvd).

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15461 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15461)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on July 10, 2018, 01:16:24 PM
NCDOT is holding public meetings on July 10 & 11 to discuss improvements to NC-54 between US-15/501 in Chapel Hill and NC-55 in Durham.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418)

I didn't know US 54 got extended to North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2018, 04:00:39 PM
NCDOT is holding public meetings on July 10 & 11 to discuss improvements to NC-54 between US-15/501 in Chapel Hill and NC-55 in Durham.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418)

I didn't know US 54 got extended to North Carolina.

Just an error in the press release; happens all the time regardless of jurisdiction!  Such paper errors can be expected -- now errors in field signage -- that's another story altogether (and, again, something that seems to happen everywhere periodically).  Sometimes good for a laugh, sometimes really pathetic (or both). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 10, 2018, 04:14:02 PM
Any guidance yet as to what projects may advance due to the bond bill passing?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 10, 2018, 06:44:25 PM
Any guidance yet as to what projects may advance due to the bond bill passing?

I think they've been gradually adding more projects to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) in anticipation of this passing. I'm not sure that there will be any set list or an announcement of accelerated projects, but who knows.

STIP Revisions (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/STIP-Amendments.aspx) offer some hints at projects getting accelerated. Some additions for July 2018 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2018%20July%20STIP%20Board%20of%20Trans%20Amendments%20Item%20N.pdf) include around $55 million (or more) in pavement rehabilitation projects for the high priority future I-87 through nowhere. Total additions are $297 million (if I'm interpreting this correctly).

I've been keeping my fingers crossed that the rest of the US 74 Shelby bypass will get accelerated instead of waiting another three years to start the last sections. But I don't think NCDOT wants to establish a new status quo by actually finishing a large project in WNC in less than a decade. The contract for the current section under construction (C) is 5.5 years for 4.8 miles of highway, and the contract doesn't even include paving. That's ridiculous. Of course if Shelby (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2743031,-81.5285699,3a,37.5y,289.4h,84.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdxXzjP8ajajgAhcQYjsZhA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) was between Raleigh and the beach it would have been built 20 years ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 10, 2018, 06:52:56 PM
NCDOT is holding public meetings on July 10 & 11 to discuss improvements to NC-54 between US-15/501 in Chapel Hill and NC-55 in Durham.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=15418)

I didn't know US 54 got extended to North Carolina.

Apparently this is a "give us your ideas" session and it's not clear what ideas NCDOT is considering. It's obvious that NC 54 needs to be widened to 6 lanes throughout; is that in prospect? The interchanges at US 15/501 and at I-40 are grossly inadequate and it's not clear if NCDOT is willing to spend the big bucks that it would take to improve them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 12, 2018, 06:53:32 PM
NCDOT has decided that its proposed 4-laning of NC 55 in Harnett County (south of Raleigh) will include a bypass of Angier.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-09-alternative-for-the-n-c--55-widening-in-wake-harnett-selected.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 13, 2018, 11:40:58 PM
NCDOT has revamped its website, adding many more images, bigger fonts and upgraded graphics (a photo of an I-73 shield is now used to access their real-time traffic information). They've even revised their project listing page adding bigger maps. The problem is, they have not updated the information on the new pages which includes the new pages for construction of now completed projects. The Greensboro Loop page map shows the route both north of US 70 to US 29 and Bryan Blvd to US 220 as still under construction. The Winston-Salem Beltway page looks forward to 2018 when construction will start between US 311 and US 52. They even revised the page for Future I-73 north of Greensboro with a new map showing its still under construction. In the projects in development section, the Complete 540 page has a new map labeling the to be constructed parts of the Loop as a 'Future Interstate' and speaking of Future Interstates, the Kinston Bypass page has a new map with I-42 along the Goldsboro Bypass. You can check out the new Projects page at:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/Pages/default.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2018, 06:47:58 AM
NCDOT has revamped its website, adding many more images, bigger fonts and upgraded graphics (a photo of an I-73 shield is now used to access their real-time traffic information). They've even revised their project listing page adding bigger maps. The problem is, they have not updated the information on the new pages which includes the new pages for construction of now completed projects. The Greensboro Loop page map shows the route both north of US 70 to US 29 and Bryan Blvd to US 220 as still under construction. The Winston-Salem Beltway page looks forward to 2018 when construction will start between US 311 and US 52. They even revised the page for Future I-73 north of Greensboro with a new map showing its still under construction. In the projects in development section, the Complete 540 page has a new map labeling the to be constructed parts of the Loop as a 'Future Interstate' and speaking of Future Interstates, the Kinston Bypass page has a new map with I-42 along the Goldsboro Bypass. You can check out the new Projects page at:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/Pages/default.aspx)

I-587 is also labeled on US-264, even on the part of 264 that goes over the north side of Greenville despite the fact that it’s not part of the I-587 corridor.

I liked the old website layout better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Buffaboy on July 15, 2018, 06:23:18 PM
I have always been fascinated by the sheer about of highways and byways that North Carolina seems to have, and they have ramped it up recently. Projects that would never even be considered in New York State are on the table down there, you have 4 lane divided arterials in the middle of nowhere, and even Greensboro seems to have a decent amount of "Jersey expressways."

Texas may have you guys beat of size of expansions but I think you've beat them on quantity.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 20, 2018, 04:27:19 PM
In other news, another contract has been awarded to build a pedestrian tunnel under Trinity Road in Raleigh, linking the parking lots at Carter-Finley Stadium and the state fairgrounds.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820)

Trinity Road has reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-20-trinity-road-raleigh-open-for-thru-traffic.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-20-trinity-road-raleigh-open-for-thru-traffic.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on July 21, 2018, 08:29:38 AM
I have always been fascinated by the sheer about of highways and byways that North Carolina seems to have, and they have ramped it up recently. Projects that would never even be considered in New York State are on the table down there, you have 4 lane divided arterials in the middle of nowhere, and even Greensboro seems to have a decent amount of "Jersey expressways."

Texas may have you guys beat of size of expansions but I think you've beat them on quantity.

Several governors of North Carolina over the years have reaffirmed a goal of having substantially all state residents within ten miles of a four-lane highway. (I think the exceptions relate to portions of the Outer Banks and the national forests in the southwestern part of the state.) You can't move all the residents to where the highways are, so.....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 21, 2018, 08:51:33 AM
I know it's a long way off, but I look forward to when they widen NC18 to 4 lanes from Morganton to Shelby, the widening from Morganton to Lenoir is making its way up the list.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 24, 2018, 01:05:38 PM
Upcoming traffic shift in Rocky Mount due to the US-301 Bypass widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-24-us-301-bypass-widening-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-24-us-301-bypass-widening-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 26, 2018, 06:46:30 PM
On Tuesday NCDOT will hold a hearing on proposals to rebuild the interchange of US 29/70 (I-85 Business) with South Main Street in High Point. The existing interchange is a vest-pocket, tight-ramped cloverleaf. Two alternatives are presented: one is a standard diamond, and the other is a half-cloverleaf.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-26--proposed-reconstruction-high-point.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 28, 2018, 10:32:48 PM
There is a post on city data about the I-26 Green River Bridges.  There was supposed to be a Jan 2019 bid date to reconstruct and widen these Bridges to 6 lanes.  The bidding has been delayed to explore either a 4 Lane rebuild in place or a 6 Lane bridge on a new location.  None of the 6 Lane rebuilds feature mainline widening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2018, 11:04:02 AM
There is a post on city data about the I-26 Green River Bridges.  There was supposed to be a Jan 2019 bid date to reconstruct and widen these Bridges to 6 lanes.  The bidding has been delayed to explore either a 4 Lane rebuild in place or a 6 Lane bridge on a new location.  None of the 6 Lane rebuilds feature mainline widening.

Here’s the link:

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JULY%202018%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/JULY%202018%20CHANGES%20REPORT.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 29, 2018, 12:55:54 PM
There is a post on city data about the I-26 Green River Bridges.  There was supposed to be a Jan 2019 bid date to reconstruct and widen these Bridges to 6 lanes.  The bidding has been delayed to explore either a 4 Lane rebuild in place or a 6 Lane bridge on a new location.  None of the 6 Lane rebuilds feature mainline widening.

I'll chime in. I mentioned this on here in April and May and made the post on City-Data.

I don't foresee I-26 being widened all the way to the South Carolina state line any time soon, but truck climbing lanes would be a huge benefit, especially around Green River. I don't know if the numbers support it, but it seems like there are way more trucks than there were ten years ago. When loaded, they go about 25-35 mph up the westbound Green River grade. And speaking of Green River, both of those bridges are 50 years old and rated structurally deficient. Whenever they are replaced, I can't imagine they will leave it as four lanes.

It turns out both bridges are scheduled for bridge rehabilitation next year (15BPR.20). The preliminary estimate is $9.6 million, so it sounds like a fair bit of work.

NCDOT 12 MONTH LET LIST (APRIL 2018 0- MARCH 2019 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Archives/12%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(APRIL%202018%20-%20MARCH%202019).pdf)

All three alternatives have been under consideration the entire time as part of the report. I'm not sure what "design issues" they've run into, but it's probably the fact that the bridges are NOT in good shape. Emergency repairs had to be made after a big hole opened up in the bridge deck (https://wlos.com/news/local/dot-lane-reopens-on-i-26-westbound-over-green-river-gorge) in June. There is also the possibility that the bridges will have to be posted for weight limits, pending further inspection and analysis.

There are pros and cons to all three alternatives:

You can read a news article about the 1993 bridge repairs here (http://www.goupstate.com/news/19930626/repairing-nc39s-interstate-26-green-river-bridge-an-engineering-challenge). Basically, they used sub-standard steel and made crappy welds when it was built.

As far as widening, there is nothing official beyond US-25/Exit 54 yet. That section currently isn't scheduled to be widened before 2025. However, a couple of big projects in Division 14 have recently been abandoned due to public outcry, so those funds may get redirected to the I-26 widening and the project gets accelerated. They may only add truck climbing lanes through that section and stop, or they may explore future widening east to US-74 in Columbus. That won't be cheap going down the mountain, and I suspect the Division would rather the money go to widening the more traveled I-40 in Haywood County from US-74 to the Buncombe County line.

The 2016 AADT at the bridges is 39,000 vehicles. The 2040 traffic forecast for the I-26 widening estimates 61,800 vehicles east of US-25, and the 2040 traffic forecast for the I-26/US-74 interchange project in Columbus estimates 44,600 vehicles west to Saluda. The former sounds too high, and the latter sounds too low, so I'm going to average it to 53,000 vehicles per day for the design year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 01, 2018, 05:16:41 PM
Heads up: NCDOT will make an announcement tomorrow concerning improvements to the interchange of I-440/US 1 (Raleigh Beltline)and Glenwood Avenue (US 70). This is a big deal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 01, 2018, 05:56:36 PM
Heads up: NCDOT will make an announcement tomorrow concerning improvements to the interchange of I-440/US 1 (Raleigh Beltline)and Glenwood Avenue (US 70). This is a big deal.

The schedule on the project website (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-glenwood/Pages/default.aspx) is showing that a design-build contract will be awarded in spring 2019. The STIP currently has it scheduled to start in 2022. So, I'm guessing that they're not holding a press conference to announce that it's been canceled.  :D

I'm curious to see how the accelerated schedule goes. Some of the neighborhoods around Blue Ridge and Ridge aren't happy about the project, and they've got money over there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 01, 2018, 07:43:43 PM
Wasn't there some project to make US70 a freeway somewhere near there? I can't remember if it was near I-540 or I-440.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2018, 10:29:55 PM
Wasn't there some project to make US70 a freeway somewhere near there? I can't remember if it was near I-540 or I-440.

Yes, between I-540 and the East End Connector.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article103937111.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article103937111.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 02, 2018, 05:23:55 PM
Heads up: NCDOT will make an announcement tomorrow concerning improvements to the interchange of I-440/US 1 (Raleigh Beltline)and Glenwood Avenue (US 70). This is a big deal.

The announcement:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-02-i-440-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-02-i-440-improvements.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 03, 2018, 06:51:33 PM
Heads up: NCDOT will make an announcement tomorrow concerning improvements to the interchange of I-440/US 1 (Raleigh Beltline)and Glenwood Avenue (US 70). This is a big deal.

The announcement:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-02-i-440-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-02-i-440-improvements.aspx)

This is the current interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/cqcGyfhnJrT2
A SPUI perhaps?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 06, 2018, 12:56:57 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 9 to discuss widening the 2-lane stretch of US-17 between NC-171 near Washington and Williamston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 06, 2018, 04:26:22 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 9 to discuss widening the 2-lane stretch of US-17 between NC-171 near Washington and Williamston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx)

I can see why this is warranted. While I didn't observe any heavy traffic here the last time I came through (May 2016), there were still delays due to the lack of turn lanes along this stretch. Pretty frustrating.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2018, 06:22:52 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 9 to discuss widening the 2-lane stretch of US-17 between NC-171 near Washington and Williamston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx)

I can see why this is warranted. While I didn't observe any heavy traffic here the last time I came through (May 2016), there were still delays due to the lack of turn lanes along this stretch. Pretty frustrating.

Since the entire length of US 17 in NC is part of NCDOT's "master plan" for freeway improvement, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is only only of a series of projects to deploy at least expressway-level improvements along that corridor; when completed, further upgrades can be applied as needed.  My guess: it'll be 4-lane divided (although I'll bet some of the interim towns will push for "5-lane" arterials in their vicinity) all the way from Wilmington to Williamston by 2030 to 2035.  Of course, this is if NCDOT and local promoters don't just say "screw it, let's just build another Interstate down 17!" at some point.   It's NC, so it's not outside the realm of possibility!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 06, 2018, 06:44:02 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 9 to discuss widening the 2-lane stretch of US-17 between NC-171 near Washington and Williamston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx)

I can see why this is warranted. While I didn't observe any heavy traffic here the last time I came through (May 2016), there were still delays due to the lack of turn lanes along this stretch. Pretty frustrating.

Since the entire length of US 17 in NC is part of NCDOT's "master plan" for freeway improvement, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is only only of a series of projects to deploy at least expressway-level improvements along that corridor; when completed, further upgrades can be applied as needed.  My guess: it'll be 4-lane divided (although I'll bet some of the interim towns will push for "5-lane" arterials in their vicinity) all the way from Wilmington to Williamston by 2030 to 2035.  Of course, this is if NCDOT and local promoters don't just say "screw it, let's just build another Interstate down 17!" at some point.   It's NC, so it's not outside the realm of possibility!
This proposal is for "smart street" design, with no left turns onto NC 17 permitted. I expect this is the model for most of the rest of US 17; we'll probably see proposals to redo some of the existing 4-lane sections (such as those in Brunswick County between Wilmington and the SC line) to this format. IMO any idea of converting the whole of US 17 in NC to an interstate is far in the future, if it ever comes at all.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 06, 2018, 07:48:51 PM
http://www.wfae.org/post/contractor-says-i-77-tolls-will-open-year-end-not-some-ramps#stream/0

So the loudest opposition is from those in North Meck who blow more money on a cup of coffee than it will take to travel the entire length? LOL
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on August 07, 2018, 08:56:06 AM
http://www.wfae.org/post/contractor-says-i-77-tolls-will-open-year-end-not-some-ramps#stream/0

So the loudest opposition is from those in North Meck who blow more money on a cup of coffee than it will take to travel the entire length? LOL

So will EZ-Pass work if and when this is done and tolls are activated?

That contractor is pretty optimistic about the completion of this mess. In various trips through that project, it looks like a lot of the work was done at random depending on the whims of some manager with a dart board.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 07, 2018, 09:24:15 AM
http://www.wfae.org/post/contractor-says-i-77-tolls-will-open-year-end-not-some-ramps#stream/0

So the loudest opposition is from those in North Meck who blow more money on a cup of coffee than it will take to travel the entire length? LOL

So will EZ-Pass work if and when this is done and tolls are activated?

That contractor is pretty optimistic about the completion of this mess. In various trips through that project, it looks like a lot of the work was done at random depending on the whims of some manager with a dart board.
 

To answer question 1, yes, EZ-Pass is compatible. But it is a different transponder, which can still be purchased by NC Turnpike Authority (cost is $7.40, there is a free version which works in NC, FL, GA- that is the one I elected to order)

To your second point, I couldn’t have said it better myself! I have pictures documented on Facebook group FreewayJim and SE Roads, and live smack dab in the middle of it (Huntersville). I’m so ready for it to open!!! Ugghhhh
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 07, 2018, 11:58:42 AM
https://www.ncquickpass.com/resources/Pages/nc-quickpass-transponders.aspx

Specifics of NC Quick Pass Transponders
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 08, 2018, 05:41:19 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 9 to discuss widening the 2-lane stretch of US-17 between NC-171 near Washington and Williamston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-06-public-input-us-17.aspx)

I can see why this is warranted. While I didn't observe any heavy traffic here the last time I came through (May 2016), there were still delays due to the lack of turn lanes along this stretch. Pretty frustrating.

Since the entire length of US 17 in NC is part of NCDOT's "master plan" for freeway improvement, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this is only only of a series of projects to deploy at least expressway-level improvements along that corridor; when completed, further upgrades can be applied as needed.  My guess: it'll be 4-lane divided (although I'll bet some of the interim towns will push for "5-lane" arterials in their vicinity) all the way from Wilmington to Williamston by 2030 to 2035.  Of course, this is if NCDOT and local promoters don't just say "screw it, let's just build another Interstate down 17!" at some point.   It's NC, so it's not outside the realm of possibility!

$80 million to widen ten miles of highway that averaged less than 6,000 vehicles per day in 2016. No wonder they have to build toll lanes in Charlotte: gotta keep sending money down east! (oink, oink)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 08, 2018, 06:40:15 PM
https://www.ncquickpass.com/resources/Pages/nc-quickpass-transponders.aspx

Specifics of NC Quick Pass Transponders
Interesting, along with a fresh coat of paint, it appears that NC Quick Pass are rolling out a new hard-case transponder design:
(https://www.ncquickpass.com/PublishingImages/nc-quick-pass-ezpass-transponder.jpg?RenditionID=23)

In addition, it looks like NC will be offering a FLEX option soon (though this is the only reference to it that I can find on the site):

Quote from: FAQ
Will my transponder work outside of North Carolina?
The NC Quick Pass sticker works on all North Carolina toll facilities and on SunPass and Peach Pass facilities in Florida and Georgia.
The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass works on all North Carolina toll roads, SunPass and Peach Pass facilities as well as E-ZPass toll facilities in other states.
The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass Flex works on all toll roads and express lanes in North Carolina as well as SunPass, Peach Pass and E-ZPass toll facilities. You can use this transponder to declare HOV status and drive for free on North Carolina Express Lanes when you meet the occupancy requirements posted on the road.

I wonder if this will work on GDOT and VDOT flex lanes. If so, I think I may exchange my current transponder.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 08, 2018, 07:08:17 PM
Quote from: Thing 342
I wonder if this will work on GDOT and VDOT flex lanes. If so, I think I may exchange my current transponder.

Any EZPass-compatible transponder will work in the VDOT HO/T lanes.  But you will get charged unless you have a specific VDOT Flex transponder being used in flex mode (because you're in a carpool).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 08, 2018, 08:40:31 PM
(https://www.ncquickpass.com/PublishingImages/nc-quick-pass-ezpass-transponder.jpg?RenditionID=23)

Looks like the casing used by the current Kapsch "G4" E-ZPass transponders.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/E-ZPass_Transponder_%28G4_Style%29.jpg/640px-E-ZPass_Transponder_%28G4_Style%29.jpg)

Wonder if they are making multi-protocol hard case variants for NCDOT now, or NCDOT is just transmitting the IAG protocol signal from the hard cased transponders.

http://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news.php?NewsID=87031
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on August 08, 2018, 09:47:49 PM
For reference, here is the current hard-case transponder issued by NCDOT (at least as of mid-2016 when I got mine):

(https://i.imgur.com/1bhhVUn.jpg)
(modified to remove personal info)

I suspect that the hard-case option used by NCDOT is more or less just an active device transmitting the IAG signal paired with a passive component that works with the NC, GA, and FL systems. In theory, a similar effect could be achieved by sticking one of the sticker transponders on the back of an E-Z Pass (though I'm pretty sure it's a bit more technically complex than that).

That's why I'm interested in the smaller size of the new hard cases. Supposedly interoperability with Texas (and possibly OK and KS) is coming soon, and I'm wondering if this may be a part of it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 08, 2018, 10:48:35 PM
For reference, here is the current hard-case transponder issued by NCDOT (at least as of mid-2016 when I got mine):

(https://i.imgur.com/1bhhVUn.jpg)
(modified to remove personal info)

I suspect that the hard-case option used by NCDOT is more or less just an active device transmitting the IAG signal paired with a passive component that works with the NC, GA, and FL systems. In theory, a similar effect could be achieved by sticking one of the sticker transponders on the back of an E-Z Pass (though I'm pretty sure it's a bit more technically complex than that).

That's why I'm interested in the smaller size of the new hard cases. Supposedly interoperability with Texas (and possibly OK and KS) is coming soon, and I'm wondering if this may be a part of it.


I'm hoping the free transponder is interoperable with TX but it's not like I drive to Texas often lol (when I've gone I have flown anyways)

Side note- I drove to Atlanta two weeks ago, just after receiving my QuickPass transponder. I used the express lanes (it was late late, after midnight) just to experiment the transponder. ~10 days later I still haven't seen the transaction post to my account. Will I get a bill from Georgia?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on August 09, 2018, 09:23:31 AM

In addition, it looks like NC will be offering a FLEX option soon (though this is the only reference to it that I can find on the site):

Quote from: FAQ
Will my transponder work outside of North Carolina?
The NC Quick Pass sticker works on all North Carolina toll facilities and on SunPass and Peach Pass facilities in Florida and Georgia.
The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass works on all North Carolina toll roads, SunPass and Peach Pass facilities as well as E-ZPass toll facilities in other states.
The NC Quick Pass E-ZPass Flex works on all toll roads and express lanes in North Carolina as well as SunPass, Peach Pass and E-ZPass toll facilities. You can use this transponder to declare HOV status and drive for free on North Carolina Express Lanes when you meet the occupancy requirements posted on the road.


So did North Carolina do a deal with Florida so its E-ZPass system will work with SunPass?

A quick search on "ezpass florida" turned up this article from last August in the Tampa paper that responds to a reader's question, "When is the Florida DOT going to accept E-ZPass on its toll roads? Orlando's Central Expressway accepts it."

Quote
The time frame for this to happen, if it ever does, remains elusive. We asked the Department of Transportation to fill us in on this frequently asked reader question back in June. After six weeks and an additional nudge, we heard back from Chad Huff, spokesperson for Florida's Turnpike Enterprise, who told us that Florida's SunPass is accepted in Georgia and North Carolina, and will be accepted in South Carolina soon (no date provided).

But in terms of SunPass and E-ZPass becoming what is referred to as "interoperable," Huff said things are complicated.

"Efforts are continuing to make SunPass interoperable with E-ZPass, however given the fact that the E-Z Pass consortium represents nearly 40 different tolling agencies, it makes the necessary cooperation with that group extremely complicated. In the meantime, SunPass has made the hardware and software upgrades necessary and stands ready to accept E-ZPass transponders when the time comes," Huff said last week.

When that time might be is murky at best.

(see https://www.tampabay.com/news/transportation/roads/no-compatibility-in-sight-for-e-zpass-and-florida-toll-system/2334589)

An article from back in November in the Orlando paper says "The E-ZPasses will be functional on toll roads managed by the Central Florida Expressway Authority: 118 miles on State Roads 408, 414, 417, 429, 451, 528 and 429. They will not work on toll roads managed by the Florida Department of Transportation, like Florida’s Turnpike."

So where is the hang-up in accepting Florida EPass in other states or E-ZPass in Florida? It appears North Carolina and some other states have figured it out. Is it a case of equipment (note "SunPass has made the hardware and software upgrades") or resistance/reluctance?

Bruce in Blacksburg (who would like to ditch one of two epass accounts)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 09, 2018, 11:13:01 AM

An article from back in November in the Orlando paper says "The E-ZPasses will be functional on toll roads managed by the Central Florida Expressway Authority: 118 miles on State Roads 408, 414, 417, 429, 451, 528 and 429. They will not work on toll roads managed by the Florida Department of Transportation, like Florida’s Turnpike."

So where is the hang-up in accepting Florida EPass in other states or E-ZPass in Florida? It appears North Carolina and some other states have figured it out. Is it a case of equipment (note "SunPass has made the hardware and software upgrades") or resistance/reluctance?

Bruce in Blacksburg (who would like to ditch one of two epass accounts)


To my understanding (again, I'm having trouble with having used my NC Quick Pass in Georgia recently) is that the NC Quick Pass is good with the Florida Sun Pass apart from the EZPass program.

Any Florida residents who can help with this?? TIA
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on August 09, 2018, 01:01:26 PM
NC Quick Pass hardcase is the only transponder that is interoperable in both the northeast (EZ-Pass) and Southeast (Florida/Georgia). I think I read that South Carolina, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are in the works as well.

That said, when I went to Florida about three years ago, there were some places where it was read successfully, but others where it was not. In particular, on highway 528 between Orlando and the beach, the pass was not being read. I drove through the toll pass lanes a couple times but the light never flashed indicating that it was read. So rather than get in trouble, I figured I must have misunderstood something and paid cash at the next gate.

When I got home, however, several weeks later, I got some charges (For the correct transponder rate, no fines) on my NC Quick Pass account from when I had gone through the gates. (The transponder number listed on the line item for the charge was my license plate number.) So there were some gates where they just didn't have the correct transponder in place and had to bill by my license plate.

As I understand it, there are actually two separate toll systems in Florida, SunPass and E-Pass, both of which have interop agreements with NC. All the SunPass gates can read the NC transponders just fine, but not all of the E-Pass gates could (yet) so they just decided to bill by license plate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 09, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
As I understand it, there are actually two separate toll systems in Florida, SunPass and E-Pass, both of which have interop agreements with NC. All the SunPass gates can read the NC transponders just fine, but not all of the E-Pass gates could (yet) so they just decided to bill by license plate.

My hope is that this is how it will shake out with PeachPass gates in Atlanta.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 10, 2018, 06:47:12 PM
On Tuesday NCDOT will hold a public hearing on possible improvements to Exit 21 of Future I-26 north of Asheville.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-10-opinions-buncombe-options.aspx

Actually the work mostly involves the intersection of Weaverville and New Stock Roads adjacent to the interchange. The link to the maps is missing, but here is where they are:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5973-2018-08-14.aspx

The current situation can be seen here: https://goo.gl/maps/z4NCRKBjxHM2

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 21, 2018, 05:51:29 AM
A public meeting is being held in Lumberton on August 28 to discuss rebuilding the I-95/Carthage Road interchange (Exit 19).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on August 27, 2018, 06:07:24 PM
NCDOT is finally getting around to widening that last piece of NC-55 in Apex.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article217226725.html
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-2901B-2018-08-30.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 28, 2018, 09:28:29 AM
NCDOT is finally getting around to widening that last piece of NC-55 in Apex.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article217226725.html
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-2901B-2018-08-30.aspx

I’m surprised CSX is going along with it. CSX is notorious for not cooperating with others.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2018, 01:09:23 AM
NCDOT is finally getting around to widening that last piece of NC-55 in Apex.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article217226725.html
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-2901B-2018-08-30.aspx

I’m surprised CSX is going along with it. CSX is notorious for not cooperating with others.

CSX has been publicly excoriated repeatedly for various practices over the last several years; since their erstwhile and combative CEO, Hunter Harrison, passed away last year, the railroad seems to have "mellowed out" considerably.  But the bridge to be replaced is on the old SAL (Seaboard Air Line, one of the CSX "heritage" lines) and has long been only a secondary freight line for the company; most of their N-S freight through NC uses the old ACL (Atlantic Coast Line) generally following US 301 because it is double-tracked and thus higher capacity.  The former SAL line, which extends from Raleigh more or less down US 1 through Southern Pines and Hamlet and on to Columbia, SC, hosts one of the Amtrak NYC-FL services and local freights only; until a decade or so ago, their Atlanta-bound freight traffic utilized that line, but that now stays on the ACL line down to Pembroke, where it turns west on their Wilmington-Monroe E-W regional main line en route to Atlanta via Greenwood, SC.  So putting a short detour on the secondary line won't significantly disrupt their service. 

Besides, most of the cost of replacing the bridge will be borne by NC and the local MPO; CSX will only have to pony up a nominal amount, since they didn't initiate the bridge replacement.  So the rail line gets a new bridge with a reset 50-75 year lifespan for a nominal fee.  If I were CSX management, I wouldn't raise a stink either! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 29, 2018, 11:52:57 AM
Well, this puts a dent in Wilmington’s hopes of I-74 going there anytime soon...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx)

Quote
A section of U.S. 74/76 in eastern Columbus County will be improved with the construction of medians and a traffic signal.

The N.C. Department of Transportation this month awarded a $9 million contract to Highland Paving Co. of Fayetteville to improve a 2.7-mile section of U.S. 74/76 between Water Tank Road in the Delco community of Columbus County and a point just east of the Brunswick County line.

The department will be reconstructing the road into a superstreet design, which redirects motorists on the side roads into turning right onto the highway. U-turn areas will be created to allow drivers who turned right to safely turn around and go in the opposite direction. The design is intended to reduce the risk of crashes, especially high-speed intersection crashes. It is also intended to improve traffic flow along the highway.

The project also will include the installation of a traffic signal on U.S. 74/76 at N.C. 87 to improve safety and mobility.

Construction will begin later this year, and the project is scheduled for completion in summer 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2018, 01:16:52 PM
Well, this puts a dent in Wilmington’s hopes of I-74 going there anytime soon...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx)

Quote
A section of U.S. 74/76 in eastern Columbus County will be improved with the construction of medians and a traffic signal.

The N.C. Department of Transportation this month awarded a $9 million contract to Highland Paving Co. of Fayetteville to improve a 2.7-mile section of U.S. 74/76 between Water Tank Road in the Delco community of Columbus County and a point just east of the Brunswick County line.

The department will be reconstructing the road into a superstreet design, which redirects motorists on the side roads into turning right onto the highway. U-turn areas will be created to allow drivers who turned right to safely turn around and go in the opposite direction. The design is intended to reduce the risk of crashes, especially high-speed intersection crashes. It is also intended to improve traffic flow along the highway.

The project also will include the installation of a traffic signal on U.S. 74/76 at N.C. 87 to improve safety and mobility.

Construction will begin later this year, and the project is scheduled for completion in summer 2020.

For better or worse (unfortunately) the legal (within the HPC-5 language) definition of I-74 still shows the corridor hanging a right (SE) turn down NC 211 at Bolton.  This "superstreet" project is sited east of Bolton, so unless the language of the authorizing act is modified, I-74's tenure on US 74/76 will end at that town.  Whether the project is question is a simple safety-oriented (and relatively economical) "stopgap" pending something more access-controlled down the line is yet TBD.  AFAIK, neither NCDOT nor any other entity has officially gone on the record regarding rerouting the main I-74 trunk directely into Wilmington; that prospect remains conceptual at present. 

Not to say they couldn't do a Wilmington extension as a x74 without altering the original-intent language!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 29, 2018, 01:37:43 PM
Is it pretty much consensus here that I-74 to Myrtle Beach is really dumb?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 29, 2018, 03:26:07 PM
Is it pretty much consensus here that I-74 to Myrtle Beach is really dumb?
Well, if not dumb, perhaps impractical. It would require routing a freeway through an environmentally critical area on a path that is less direct than the proposed I-73 route from Rockingham. There are many politicians and officials in the Wilmington area that have expressed their support for the route to end there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2018, 03:36:39 PM
Is it pretty much consensus here that I-74 to Myrtle Beach is really dumb?

Yes, on a number of counts;  it's only the 2nd corridor within the particular authorizing legislation (HPC 5, part of the 1991 ISTEA bunch, and elevated to Interstate status 4 years later) to head to that tourist trap -- and by a convoluted alignment that takes it right through the NC coastal swamps down NC 211.  It's (1) superfluous, (2) environmentally questionable, (3) a totally political animal, promulgated by Myrtle interests, and (4) since its truncation to Georgetown from its original Charleston terminus (a combination of environmental and NIMBY factors), its value as a coastal connector is now nil.  Taking I-74 directly to Wilmington would be the obvious viable alternative, but so far any formal action toward that end hasn't been on anyone's radar, despite localized rumblings to that effect.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 29, 2018, 04:06:00 PM
Is it pretty much consensus here that I-74 to Myrtle Beach is really dumb?
Well, if not dumb, perhaps impractical. It would require routing a freeway through an environmentally critical area on a path that is less direct than the proposed I-73 route from Rockingham. There are many politicians and officials in the Wilmington area that have expressed their support for the route to end there.

As they should. Nobody in their right mind coming from Rockingham and points west would use I-74 to go to Myrtle Beach.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2018, 04:09:28 PM
^^^^
If you're in that much of a hurry to buy a stupid-ass T-shirt, just order one from Amazon!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 29, 2018, 06:25:44 PM
Well, this puts a dent in Wilmington’s hopes of I-74 going there anytime soon...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-29-intersection-improvement.aspx)

Quote
A section of U.S. 74/76 in eastern Columbus County will be improved with the construction of medians and a traffic signal.

The N.C. Department of Transportation this month awarded a $9 million contract to Highland Paving Co. of Fayetteville to improve a 2.7-mile section of U.S. 74/76 between Water Tank Road in the Delco community of Columbus County and a point just east of the Brunswick County line.

The department will be reconstructing the road into a superstreet design, which redirects motorists on the side roads into turning right onto the highway. U-turn areas will be created to allow drivers who turned right to safely turn around and go in the opposite direction. The design is intended to reduce the risk of crashes, especially high-speed intersection crashes. It is also intended to improve traffic flow along the highway.

The project also will include the installation of a traffic signal on U.S. 74/76 at N.C. 87 to improve safety and mobility.

Construction will begin later this year, and the project is scheduled for completion in summer 2020.
This section of US 74/76 has a fair amount of commercial development and many at-grade intersections. If I-74 (or I-x74) is extended to Wilmington it would certainly bypass this area on new location. So the project doesn't have much negative effect on the possibility of a later interstate extension, although it suggests we ought not to expect the interstate anytime soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 30, 2018, 10:55:55 PM
As part if its 2020-2029 STIP process, NCDOT today released a list of regional impact projects that will make the list of funded construction projects over the next 10 years. Among the projects programmed to be included are:
Upgrading US 74 (Future I-74) to Interstate Standards from the end of the US 74 Rockingham Bypass to Laurinburg;
Constructing the rest of the I-73/I-74 Rockingham Bypass;
Upgrading US 29 (Future I-785) to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 158 in Guilford and Rockingham Counties;
Constructing the Western Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (Future I-274?) from US 158 to NC 67;
U.S. 64 — N.C. 58 to Thomas Road Overpass in Nash and Edgecombe counties:  Upgrade to interstate (Future I-87)
U.S. 117 — Country Club Road to N.C. 581 in Wayne County: Upgrade to interstate and build interstate on new location (Future I-795);
NCDOT has released press releases for each division here:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000)

List for Division 7: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx)
List for Division 8: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx)

On the list of possible projects that did not make the list was upgrading US 220 (Future I-73) from NC 68 to the VA state line to interstate standards. The Draft STIP is to be released in January 2019.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 30, 2018, 11:06:17 PM
I wonder if NCDOT ever plans on removing the handful of at-grade intersections between Cone Blvd and I-785. Maybe if they ever properly reconstruct the whole expressway down to I-40. :P
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 31, 2018, 01:08:11 AM
On the list of possible projects that did not make the list was upgrading US 220 (Future I-73) from NC 68 to the VA state line to interstate standards. The Draft STIP is to be released in January 2019.


Not surprising, since VA doesn't seem to be much interested in advancing their portion of I-73 in the near term; considering that, prioritizing a US 220 upgrade north to the state line would be pointless and a waste of funds (unless the goal would be to goad VA into making a move -- which, taking into account the differences in state policies, would likely not work anyway).  Better the $$ be distributed to other projects that need to be done (i.e. the completion of the Rockingham bypass and the full completion of I-74 to I-95 and beyond).   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 31, 2018, 04:51:44 AM
As part if its 2020-2029 STIP process, NCDOT today released a list of regional impact projects that will make the list of funded construction projects over the next 10 years. Among the projects programmed to be included are:
Upgrading US 74 (Future I-74) to Interstate Standards from the end of the US 74 Rockingham Bypass to Laurinburg;
Constructing the rest of the I-73/I-74 Rockingham Bypass;
Upgrading US 29 (Future I-785) to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 158 in Guilford and Rockingham Counties;
Constructing the Western Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (Future I-274?) from US 158 to NC 67;
U.S. 64 — N.C. 58 to Thomas Road Overpass in Nash and Edgecombe counties:  Upgrade to interstate (Future I-87)
U.S. 117 — Country Club Road to N.C. 581 in Wayne County: Upgrade to interstate and build interstate on new location (Future I-795);
NCDOT has released press releases for each division here:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000)

List for Division 7: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx)
List for Division 8: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx)

On the list of possible projects that did not make the list was upgrading US 220 (Future I-73) from NC 68 to the VA state line to interstate standards. The Draft STIP is to be released in January 2019.

It took NCDOT long enough to finally realize that I-73 doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of being built in VA and any money directed towards it would be pissing money away.

The one project listed that I am very happy about is I-795. Wayne County really needs a second major crossing of the Neuse River since the current US-117 bridges are notoriously flood prone. I used to live there and it doesn’t take much to flood them out and when they were, it caused big problems for the southern half of the county. I expect the new I-795 bridges would be built with that in mind. Another plus for the new I-795 bypass is that it would relieve traffic on US-117 through the Mar-Mac area. Traffic can be a real pain in the ass along that stretch. A bypass would certainly be welcome.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 09:12:58 AM
I’ve always thought I-74 should go to Myrtle Beach. Along with I-73. Given how much of a popular tourist destination it is, I think I-74 should end there, but I-73 continues on south to I-95 near Walterboro or something south of that. That way there’s Interstate access from the south of Myrtle Beach.

Speaking of NC, what’s the latest with I-285?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 31, 2018, 09:48:01 AM


Speaking of NC, what’s the latest with I-285?


Well, no sign plans have been downloaded nor have any trailblazers been put up on a temporary basis, as of a week or two ago when I was driving home from a half day trip to Winston-Salem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 31, 2018, 09:50:34 AM
The only way I-74 going to Myrtle Beach makes any sense is wholly concurrent with I-73, which would make no sense, resulting in I-74 being completely useless south of where it meets I-73 south of Greensboro and High Point. I think there should definitely be an expressway linking I-140 to SC 31/Carolina Bays Parkway, but taking I-74 over there and down is just silly.

In fact I think cutting off I-74 where it currently meets I-73 would probably be best, creating a new interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington along US 74. Maybe even end the planned corridor at Portsmouth, OH, just a little further than Cincinnati. The diagonal around Winston-Salem from I-77 to I-73 could be numbered something else. Getting a little too far into fictional territory, though...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 31, 2018, 10:35:19 AM
I’ve always thought I-74 should go to Myrtle Beach.

I strongly disagree. I-73 is shorter and more direct. Anybody coming down I-95 would take I-73 to Myrtle Beach instead of going out of the way on I-74. Ditto for those coming from points west of I-95. As noted above, the new alignment that I-74 would have to follow to Myrtle Beach is very environmentally sensitive. I have a hard time believing that the Army Corps of Engineers would sign off on it, given that I-73 alone is more than capable of getting people to and from Myrtle Beach. Did I mention that I-73 is more direct?

Wilmington got the shaft as usual.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 31, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
I’ve always thought I-74 should go to Myrtle Beach.

I strongly disagree. I-73 is shorter and more direct. Anybody coming down I-95 would take I-73 to Myrtle Beach instead of going out of the way on I-74. Ditto for those coming from points west of I-95. As noted above, the new alignment that I-74 would have to follow to Myrtle Beach is very environmentally sensitive. I have a hard time believing that the Army Corps of Engineers would sign off on it, given that I-73 alone is more than capable of getting people to and from Myrtle Beach. Did I mention that I-73 is more direct?

Wilmington got the shaft as usual.

Regardless of what number it will be called, I think they should still have an interstate corridor along US 74 to Wilmington. Hopefully they still keep the ROW along that corridor so that it can be upgraded in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Interstate 69 Fan on August 31, 2018, 02:20:13 PM
The only way I-74 going to Myrtle Beach makes any sense is wholly concurrent with I-73, which would make no sense, resulting in I-74 being completely useless south of where it meets I-73 south of Greensboro and High Point. I think there should definitely be an expressway linking I-140 to SC 31/Carolina Bays Parkway, but taking I-74 over there and down is just silly.

In fact I think cutting off I-74 where it currently meets I-73 would probably be best, creating a new interstate from Charlotte to Wilmington along US 74. Maybe even end the planned corridor at Portsmouth, OH, just a little further than Cincinnati. The diagonal around Winston-Salem from I-77 to I-73 could be numbered something else. Getting a little too far into fictional territory, though...
Yeah I get your point. I agree now with I-74 ending south of Greensboro, and just I-73 going. I don’t think I-74 should go to Wilmington still though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 31, 2018, 02:26:14 PM
Update on the Greenville Southwest Bypass:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-31-greenville-sw-bypass-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-31-greenville-sw-bypass-traffic-shift.aspx)

Quote
Work on the Greenville Southwest Bypass will require a major traffic shift starting at 7 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 4. Drivers on both lanes of U.S. 13/U.S. 264 Alternate will be shifted to the north between west of the Davenport Farm Road intersection and east of the Mabrey Lane intersection.

The shift is needed so crews can safely work on two bridges over U.S. 13/U.S. 264 Alternate. The new traffic pattern is expected to be in place through October

Drivers are urged to pay extra attention and slow down as they approach the shift location and get used to the new traffic pattern.

The bypass is a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway going between two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrapping around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and ending at the U.S. 264 Bypass west of Greenville. Intended to relieve congestion and improve safety on other roadways in Greenville, particularly on Memorial Drive (N.C. 11) and Stantonsburg Road (U.S. 264 Business), the new highway should open in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 31, 2018, 07:10:17 PM
Chance I-74 goes to Myrtle Beach: zero.
Chance I-74 (or some I-number) goes to Wilmington: pretty good, but not before the 2030s.
Chance of an interstate connection from I-140 to the Carolina Bays Parkway: not very good, but watch for some significant upgrades to US 17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 31, 2018, 07:19:12 PM
I’ve always thought I-74 should go to Myrtle Beach. Along with I-73. Given how much of a popular tourist destination it is, I think I-74 should end there, but I-73 continues on south to I-95 near Walterboro or something south of that. That way there’s Interstate access from the south of Myrtle Beach.

Speaking of NC, what’s the latest with I-285?


Even with NCDOT dicking around with the "superstreet" concept on major highways in tourist-heavy zones (US 17, US 74/76 between Bolton and Wilmington) -- likely to preserve business access for the time being -- US 17 and the entirety of US 74 is on their "master plan" for eventual full freeway upgrades.  It's likely only a matter of time (and funding distribution) before the freeway trigger is pulled on both corridors, likely followed (as per NCDOT's modus operandi) with a request for Interstate designation.  My guess is that the NC 211 section of the present defined I-74 corridor will be kicked down the road (or possibly built as something like a "super-2" for the near term) just so they don't have to deal with it until it's politically feasible to eliminate the I-74 SW turn to Myrtle -- something that would be made possible by actual development activity on SC's portion of I-73, giving that town its long-desired I-access.  At that point a designation (hopefully appropriate) could be sought for the entirety of the freeway along or paralleling US 17, including the existing SC 31 facility, and I-74 could enter Wilmington unfettered.  Of course, in an ideal world, the entire US 74 corridor from I-26 to Wilmington would be something like I-34 or I-36 and, as has been suggested repeatedly, I-74 would be cut back to its northern junction with I-73 (if not eliminated completely in NC).  But even though NC is something of an optimal environment in which to develop new Interstate corridors (adequate gas tax + political will), they're certainly not perfect by any means (vide the designation debacle that led to I-87) -- and haven't yet shown any inclination to deviate significantly from the original I-73/74 plans.   

As far as I-285 goes, the latest news has it signed before the end of this year.  Bob Malme may have more detailed info regarding this than myself; if he has anything to add or correct, I'm sure he'll do so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on August 31, 2018, 11:04:21 PM
As part if its 2020-2029 STIP process, NCDOT today released a list of regional impact projects that will make the list of funded construction projects over the next 10 years. Among the projects programmed to be included are:
Upgrading US 74 (Future I-74) to Interstate Standards from the end of the US 74 Rockingham Bypass to Laurinburg;
Constructing the rest of the I-73/I-74 Rockingham Bypass;
Upgrading US 29 (Future I-785) to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 158 in Guilford and Rockingham Counties;
Constructing the Western Section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway (Future I-274?) from US 158 to NC 67;
U.S. 64 — N.C. 58 to Thomas Road Overpass in Nash and Edgecombe counties:  Upgrade to interstate (Future I-87)
U.S. 117 — Country Club Road to N.C. 581 in Wayne County: Upgrade to interstate and build interstate on new location (Future I-795);
NCDOT has released press releases for each division here:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/default.aspx?startdate=201803020000&enddate=201808300000)

List for Division 7: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-division-seven-sti-projects.aspx)
List for Division 8: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-30-ncdot-releases-regional-projects-for-division-8.aspx)

On the list of possible projects that did not make the list was upgrading US 220 (Future I-73) from NC 68 to the VA state line to interstate standards. The Draft STIP is to be released in January 2019.

I put a picture together using screenshots of all the projects for future interstates (I-42, I-87, etc.,) shown in the Statewide Mobility (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/MPORPODocuments/DRAFT-P5.0-Programmed-Statewide-Mobility-Projects.pdf) and Regional Impact (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/MPORPODocuments/DRAFT-P5.0-Programmed-Regional-Impact-Projects.pdf) project lists. Apologies for the small font.

Statewide Mobility
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_31_08_18_10_53_47.jpeg)

Regional Impact
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_31_08_18_10_54_20.jpeg)

I included the Wadesboro bypass in this list because, knowing NC, I'm guessing that the US74 corridor between Rockingham and Charlotte will probably be an interstate at some point. I also included the I-26 widening in Asheville (project I-2513A) because I thought it wasn't gonna happen till after the other two sections of the project (I-2513B and I-2513C) were completed. But now this project is listed for FY 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 01, 2018, 08:05:27 PM
I’ve always thought I-74 should go to Myrtle Beach. Along with I-73. Given how much of a popular tourist destination it is, I think I-74 should end there, but I-73 continues on south to I-95 near Walterboro or something south of that. That way there’s Interstate access from the south of Myrtle Beach.

Speaking of NC, what’s the latest with I-285?


It will be signed at the end of the year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 01, 2018, 08:09:58 PM
On the list of possible projects that did not make the list was upgrading US 220 (Future I-73) from NC 68 to the VA state line to interstate standards. The Draft STIP is to be released in January 2019.


Not surprising, since VA doesn't seem to be much interested in advancing their portion of I-73 in the near term; considering that, prioritizing a US 220 upgrade north to the state line would be pointless and a waste of funds (unless the goal would be to goad VA into making a move -- which, taking into account the differences in state policies, would likely not work anyway).  Better the $$ be distributed to other projects that need to be done (i.e. the completion of the Rockingham bypass and the full completion of I-74 to I-95 and beyond).


I don't know why you guys think VA has no interest or something like that. I went to the meeting for Martinsville Southern Connector (which is about looking at upgrading US 220 from US 58 south to NC state line potentially to Interstate standards or close to it) last month, there ARE still interest in the I-73 from of Henry, Franklin and Roanoke countries. The problem is not lack of interest. The problem is money and politics from Richmond.

NCDOT is going to build I-73 towards VA state line whether VA commits to it or not, it is just not a priority at THIS TIME as I have been in touch with the spokesperson who works for NCDOT there when it comes to I-73.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 01, 2018, 11:31:10 PM
^^^^^^
Maybe I shouldn't be wading back into this quagmire (got my head bitten off by a VA-based poster the last time I mentioned it)  -- but since someone else is taking the lead, I may as well ask a couple of questions of regional posters:

Q1:  Is there a chance in hell that the Martinsville Southern Connector project may be near-term funded & developed separately from the entire I-73 corridor north to Roanoke?
Q2:  When and if funded, is the in-NC project to extend I-73 to the state line slated to be done in segments or as one integral project?


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 01, 2018, 11:58:47 PM
Q1:  Is there a chance in hell that the Martinsville Southern Connector project may be near-term funded & developed separately from the entire I-73 corridor north to Roanoke?

It is being studied in a separate EIS to be completed in 2021 --

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/martinsville_southern_connector_study.asp

The Martinsville Southern Connector study will focus on a potential limited access road on a new location and/or will look at potential new improvements to Route 220.

The area for study generally covers Route 220 between Route 58 and the North Carolina state line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 02, 2018, 12:09:08 AM
^^^^^^
Maybe I shouldn't be wading back into this quagmire (got my head bitten off by a VA-based poster the last time I mentioned it)  -- but since someone else is taking the lead, I may as well ask a couple of questions of regional posters:

Q1:  Is there a chance in hell that the Martinsville Southern Connector project may be near-term funded & developed separately from the entire I-73 corridor north to Roanoke?
Q2:  When and if funded, is the in-NC project to extend I-73 to the state line slated to be done in segments or as one integral project?


Beltway responded to your first question. :) and the EIS is still ongoing. I plan on attending more meetings in the future.

As of NC’s section of I-73, based on what I was told, it will probably be built into segments: from NC 68 to US 311/NC 135; and then from there to VA state line. The section of US 220 between NC 68 and US 311/NC 135 interchanges has a proposed interchange at Samdis Church Rd/Baggage Rds. But again, everything can change between now and 2040.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on September 02, 2018, 12:12:23 AM
Q1:  Is there a chance in hell that the Martinsville Southern Connector project may be near-term funded & developed separately from the entire I-73 corridor north to Roanoke?

It is being studied in a separate EIS to be completed in 2021 --

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/salem/martinsville_southern_connector_study.asp

The Martinsville Southern Connector study will focus on a potential limited access road on a new location and/or will look at potential new improvements to Route 220.

The area for study generally covers Route 220 between Route 58 and the North Carolina state line.

Thanks for the info (and for leaving my head intact this time).  I guess we'll see how this all shakes out about 2 1/2-3 years down the line.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 02, 2018, 08:22:31 AM
Don't put the rope around your neck and you will be fine.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 02, 2018, 06:02:53 PM
I don't know why you guys think VA has no interest or something like that. I went to the meeting for Martinsville Southern Connector (which is about looking at upgrading US 220 from US 58 south to NC state line potentially to Interstate standards or close to it) last month, there ARE still interest in the I-73 from of Henry, Franklin and Roanoke countries. The problem is not lack of interest.

Nobody said there wasn’t local interest in I-73.

Quote
The problem is money and politics from Richmond.

...which is why most of us don’t think VA will ever build I-73. SW VA is simply too far down the totem pole. Local interest doesn’t mean crap if it doesn’t have muscle at the state level.

Quote
NCDOT is going to build I-73 towards VA state line whether VA commits to it or not, it is just not a priority at THIS TIME as I have been in touch with the spokesperson who works for NCDOT there when it comes to I-73.

It won’t be a priority for a looong time, not when there are other projects in the state that would actually get a decent ROI, such as finally finishing the US-74 Shelby Bypass (which NCDOT dragged it’s heels on), W-S Northern Beltway, upgrading US-70 to I-42, and extending I-795 to I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 02, 2018, 09:20:44 PM
The problem is money and politics from Richmond.
...which is why most of us don’t think VA will ever build I-73. SW VA is simply too far down the totem pole. Local interest doesn’t mean crap if it doesn’t have muscle at the state level.

Yeah, yeah, you claim regional discrimination, when as I have pointed out many times here this is a $4 billion dollar project to bypass an existing 4-lane divided highway in that corridor.  It is just has a very poor cost/benefit ratio.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on September 03, 2018, 10:30:50 AM
The problem is money and politics from Richmond.
...which is why most of us don’t think VA will ever build I-73. SW VA is simply too far down the totem pole. Local interest doesn’t mean crap if it doesn’t have muscle at the state level.

Yeah, yeah, you claim regional discrimination, when as I have pointed out many times here this is a $4 billion dollar project to bypass an existing 4-lane divided highway in that corridor.  It is just has a very poor cost/benefit ratio.

While there may be some "the state ends at Charlottesville" bias from NOVA and Tidewater, the real issue is this one here -- the cost. There is also local resistance from certain segments of the population who were not happy with early plans that showed a new route cutting across valleys and ridges to get from Martinsville to Roanoke (see, for example, the resistance to the Mountain-Valley Pipeline project in Southwest Virginia). Another major problem is where to go when the road reaches south of Roanoke -- there is just no good (inexpensive) location to route a major highway, even if the final tie-in with I-81 is determined. Same goes for getting around Boones Mill (although bypassing this bottleneck/speed trap would be an improvement). Incremental improvements to parts of U.S. 220 (mainly fixing some of the curves) would be money better spent instead of doing studies for a road that is very close to the bottom of most lists.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 03, 2018, 02:25:20 PM
[I-73 VA]
While there may be some "the state ends at Charlottesville" bias from NOVA and Tidewater, the real issue is this one here -- the cost. There is also local resistance from certain segments of the population who were not happy with early plans that showed a new route cutting across valleys and ridges to get from Martinsville to Roanoke (see, for example, the resistance to the Mountain-Valley Pipeline project in Southwest Virginia). Another major problem is where to go when the road reaches south of Roanoke -- there is just no good (inexpensive) location to route a major highway, even if the final tie-in with I-81 is determined. Same goes for getting around Boones Mill (although bypassing this bottleneck/speed trap would be an improvement). Incremental improvements to parts of U.S. 220 (mainly fixing some of the curves) would be money better spent instead of doing studies for a road that is very close to the bottom of most lists.
Bruce in Blacksburg

It will be interesting to see the EIS/location study for the Martinsville Southern Connector project when completed in 2021.  Alternates include new location as well as upgrade of existing.  Then decisions can be made when the cost estimates and location is known.  The east leg of the US-58 Martinsville Bypass is already close to Interstate standards, and that could be included.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: branched-out on September 03, 2018, 09:11:50 PM
Is there a place on the forum for abominations like this, in Fuquay-Varina? It's not just one; they have at least 3 of these posted around the town. They've been up for years and make me wince every time I pass by, but finally stopped for a picture today.
(https://imgur.com/tiwGU1m.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on September 06, 2018, 12:19:05 AM
https://www.coastalreview.org/2018/09/ncdot-announces-outer-banks-projects/ (https://www.coastalreview.org/2018/09/ncdot-announces-outer-banks-projects/)


A few potential OBX projects have been announced.


Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has announced several major local projects that could begin over the next decade, including an interchange at U.S. 158 and N.C. 12 in Kitty Hawk.As part of the annual update to the highway department’s 10-year planning document, known as the Strategic Transportation Improvement Plan, or STIP, projects are scored on a state, regional and local impact level.
In addition to the interchange beginning as early as 2019, the update includes widening U.S. 158 between Barco and Belcross as early as 2025 and a second passenger ferry to run between Hatteras and Ocracoke, as soon as 2027.
These will be placed on the STIP, which will allow for funds to be budgeted for planning, right-of-way acquisition and then eventual construction.
Here’s the breakdown: Short Cut Road to superstreet configuration, $91.6 million, right of way 2023, construction 2025.
  • Second passenger ferry, Hatteras dock parking lot, $6.5 million, construction 2027.
  • Kitty Hawk interchange, $32.2 million, right of way 2027, construction 2029.
  • An environmental review is under way for the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge. A timeline for the project is pending approval of the review.


    [/l][/l][/l][/l]
The Mid-Currituck bridge reminds me of all the toll facilities NCDOT wants to establish. Looks like they want to slowly advance to join the Northeastern Empire of Tolling The Hell Out Of Everybody. Have to pay for the population boom of this state somehow, though.





(alright at this point i give up battling with the formatting on this, it is going nuts)[/list]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on September 06, 2018, 03:43:49 PM
https://www.coastalreview.org/2018/09/ncdot-announces-outer-banks-projects/ (https://www.coastalreview.org/2018/09/ncdot-announces-outer-banks-projects/)


A few potential OBX projects have been announced.


Quote
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has announced several major local projects that could begin over the next decade, including an interchange at U.S. 158 and N.C. 12 in Kitty Hawk.As part of the annual update to the highway department’s 10-year planning document, known as the Strategic Transportation Improvement Plan, or STIP, projects are scored on a state, regional and local impact level.
In addition to the interchange beginning as early as 2019, the update includes widening U.S. 158 between Barco and Belcross as early as 2025 and a second passenger ferry to run between Hatteras and Ocracoke, as soon as 2027.
These will be placed on the STIP, which will allow for funds to be budgeted for planning, right-of-way acquisition and then eventual construction.
Here’s the breakdown: Short Cut Road to superstreet configuration, $91.6 million, right of way 2023, construction 2025.
  • Second passenger ferry, Hatteras dock parking lot, $6.5 million, construction 2027.
  • Kitty Hawk interchange, $32.2 million, right of way 2027, construction 2029.
  • An environmental review is under way for the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge. A timeline for the project is pending approval of the review.


    [/l][/l][/l][/l]
The Mid-Currituck bridge reminds me of all the toll facilities NCDOT wants to establish. Looks like they want to slowly advance to join the Northeastern Empire of Tolling The Hell Out Of Everybody. Have to pay for the population boom of this state somehow, though.





(alright at this point i give up battling with the formatting on this, it is going nuts)[/list]

So Currituck bridge will be a full toll road?? Never imagined an NC Turnpike project would advance that far East!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 06, 2018, 06:11:16 PM

So Currituck bridge will be a full toll road?? Never imagined an NC Turnpike project would advance that far East!

The great (probably overwhelming) majority of the folks using the Mid-Currituck Bridge will be OBX vacationers coming from Virginia and other states to the north. Now, as a NC taxpayer, I'm happy for these folks to come to NC to spend money. However, we NC taxpayers have been doing our part for the OBX resorts. We've paid the full cost of the new Virginia Dare bridge on US 64. We're paying the full cost of the new Bonner Bridge (also used heavily by out-of-staters) on NC 12 and the full cost of the "jug-handle" bridge bringing NC 12 safely into Rodanthe. So I don't have any problem asking Virginians and other out-of-staters to pay for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 06, 2018, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63
However, we NC taxpayers have been doing our part for the OBX resorts. We've paid the full cost of the new Virginia Dare bridge on US 64.

OBX access, yes.  But I'd argue this one is still mostly used by other NC taxpayers.  You have a valid point regarding the other bridges, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 06, 2018, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63
However, we NC taxpayers have been doing our part for the OBX resorts. We've paid the full cost of the new Virginia Dare bridge on US 64.
OBX access, yes.  But I'd argue this one is still mostly used by other NC taxpayers.  You have a valid point regarding the other bridges, though.

It is a 2-way process, as the OBX benefits greatly by having ample bridge and highway access so that vacationers can get there efficiently.  The Mid-Currituck bridge would provide much better northerly access, allowing many more vacationers access to the island.

The argument has been made for quite some time now, that the increased state and federal tax revenue generated by the OBX well exceeds the state and federal funding for roads and flood insurance on the OBX.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2018, 07:13:18 AM
Speaking of the coast...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-06-umstead-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-06-umstead-closure.aspx)

Quote
MANNS HARBOR - The N.C. Department of Transportation will close the William B. Umstead Bridge, locally known as the Old Manns Harbor Bridge, between 6 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 15 and noon on Saturday, Sept. 29.

During the closure, workers will be making concrete and metal repairs in order to replace an expansion joint at the eastern end of the bridge. In addition, the closure will accommodate participants in the Outer Banks Triathlon (Sep. 15-16) and the Outer Banks Cycle Race (Sep. 29).

While the bridge is closed, motorists will still be able to cross Croatan Sound between Roanoke Island and the Dare County mainland via the Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge. NCDOT is making every effort to schedule the work and the closure to minimize summertime and holiday travel impacts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 07, 2018, 10:18:39 AM
The US-17 Hampstead Bypass has been fully funded.

https://www.wwaytv3.com/2018/09/06/hampstead-bypass-is-now-fully-funded/ (https://www.wwaytv3.com/2018/09/06/hampstead-bypass-is-now-fully-funded/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 07, 2018, 04:17:33 PM
The US-17 Hampstead Bypass has been fully funded.

https://www.wwaytv3.com/2018/09/06/hampstead-bypass-is-now-fully-funded/ (https://www.wwaytv3.com/2018/09/06/hampstead-bypass-is-now-fully-funded/)
The NCDOT Press Release, notice that they seem to think US 17 is still officially routed on the Wilmington Bypass:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-07-hampstead-bypass-accelerated-near-wilmington.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-07-hampstead-bypass-accelerated-near-wilmington.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 07, 2018, 06:10:12 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63
However, we NC taxpayers have been doing our part for the OBX resorts. We've paid the full cost of the new Virginia Dare bridge on US 64.
OBX access, yes.  But I'd argue this one is still mostly used by other NC taxpayers.  You have a valid point regarding the other bridges, though.

It is a 2-way process, as the OBX benefits greatly by having ample bridge and highway access so that vacationers can get there efficiently.  The Mid-Currituck bridge would provide much better northerly access, allowing many more vacationers access to the island.

The argument has been made for quite some time now, that the increased state and federal tax revenue generated by the OBX well exceeds the state and federal funding for roads and flood insurance on the OBX.
This is correct. However: if the Mid-Currituck Bridge had to compete with other projects, I think it would have a tough time getting funding in view of all the other OBX needs up and down highway 12.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2018, 09:50:34 AM
In other news, another contract has been awarded to build a pedestrian tunnel under Trinity Road in Raleigh, linking the parking lots at Carter-Finley Stadium and the state fairgrounds.

https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=14820)

Trinity Road has reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-20-trinity-road-raleigh-open-for-thru-traffic.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-20-trinity-road-raleigh-open-for-thru-traffic.aspx)

The tunnel is opening this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-25-trinity-pedestrian-tunnel-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-09-25-trinity-pedestrian-tunnel-opening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 01, 2018, 10:12:10 AM
A contract to widen a stretch of I-95 from 4 to 8 lanes will be awarded next spring. Two public meetings will be held later this month to discuss the project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 01, 2018, 04:38:10 PM
Could one or both of the new lanes be tolled, or are the traffic demands in the corridor insufficent to make tolling practical? What are the daily traffic counts on that portion of Interstate 95?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2018, 06:01:07 PM
^ Politics is what makes tolling impractical.  As for volumes, I refer you to the map I made last year (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19592.msg2203257#msg2203257)...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 01, 2018, 06:49:36 PM
A contract to widen a stretch of I-95 from 4 to 8 lanes will be awarded next spring. Two public meetings will be held later this month to discuss the project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx)
"It's been a long time coming, but a change has got to come." Exit 56 connects to US 301 (Business 95) into Fayetteville, so the point here is to widen the section between Fayetteville and I-40. Got to start somewhere, of course, but just imagine the crunch when 8 lanes narrow to 4.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2018, 11:14:28 PM
^ There's enough of a traffic split at 40 to where it should be minimal impact there.  I don't have specific ramp volumes, but mainline volumes suggest that around half the traffic on northbound 95 approaching 40 exits to 40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2018, 05:06:52 AM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on October 4 to discuss widening US-158 in Gates County between Acorn Hill Road and the Pasquotank County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-gates-158-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-gates-158-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2018, 04:56:23 PM
Two public meetings are being held (October 9 in Raleigh, October 11 in Wake Forest) regarding upgrading US-1 between I-540 and Purnell Road/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Presumably, this will become a freeway.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 02, 2018, 06:13:23 PM
^ Wasteful spending on additional ROW for a loop at BUS 98 when upgrading the existing interchange would be just as effective and less expensive.

Also some very incomplete maps.  They show nothing in the way of frontage roads or what happens to access existing properties and developments that "dead end" off of existing US 1.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 02, 2018, 06:15:40 PM
Two public meetings are being held (October 9 in Raleigh, October 11 in Wake Forest) regarding upgrading US-1 between I-540 and Purnell Road/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Presumably, this will become a freeway.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx)
No doubt about it: the maps show a freeway with several DDI's and a SPUI at the highway 98 bypass. There will probably be some pushback from commercial interests and landowners sitting on property that could be developed in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on October 02, 2018, 06:53:39 PM
http://ncdot.publicinput.com/US-1-Capital-Boulevard
"NCDOT will study service roads and local connections to maintain regional mobility and access to properties along the corridor."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 03, 2018, 07:27:57 AM
^ I saw that, but they had nothing of the sort on their concept maps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 03, 2018, 05:21:36 PM
I believe they're more of conceptual maps to show the study area and gather public input on the proposed preliminary design. They'll hold another public meeting later once the design is refined some more. Typically they show the R/W that is being acquired, areas of cut/fill, noise study areas, etc. Those aren't shown on these plans.

An example map (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-5008_Public_Meeting_Map_Alternate_1.pdf) with more detail.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 06, 2018, 02:38:44 PM
I was just looking at I-795 on Google Streetview and noticed a new sign on the northbound side just north of the US-70 Bypass interchange warning drivers about slow moving farm equipment for the next 4 miles.

Image dated July 2018: https://goo.gl/maps/BnjPAdA1UfA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/BnjPAdA1UfA2)

I thought farm equipment was banned from interstates? :hmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 07, 2018, 02:33:54 AM
I was just looking at I-795 on Google Streetview and noticed a new sign on the northbound side just north of the US-70 Bypass interchange warning drivers about slow moving farm equipment for the next 4 miles.

Image dated July 2018: https://goo.gl/maps/BnjPAdA1UfA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/BnjPAdA1UfA2)

I thought farm equipment was banned from interstates? :hmm:

I'm scratching my head on this too. I'm not an expert on federal guidelines but this has to be a violation. Unless they already allow it in the extremely rural parts of the Midwest or something
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on October 07, 2018, 08:52:10 AM
It depends on the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2018, 11:08:07 AM
According to this article from April 18, 2017, farm equipment cannot use interstates in NC.

https://lee.ces.ncsu.edu/2017/04/sharing-the-road-with-farm-equipment-3/ (https://lee.ces.ncsu.edu/2017/04/sharing-the-road-with-farm-equipment-3/)

Quote
In North Carolina, it is legal for farm equipment to travel on most public roads, the exception being interstates.

As far as I know, there’s been no change in the law, or if there was, there’s been zero mention of it in the news.

In addition to the Streetview image I previously linked, there’s also another sign on the I-795/US-264 overlap in Wilson just east of the I-95 interchange:

https://goo.gl/maps/UM4vvbvgCrt (https://goo.gl/maps/UM4vvbvgCrt)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on October 07, 2018, 11:56:13 AM
https://pilotonline.com/news/local/transportation/article_6f26338d-b478-5d69-b5e0-4d5467e084b7.html

Quote
In recent [June 2012] months, U.S. 17 has been at the center of a bill in the North Carolina General Assembly that would allow farmers to petition to drive their tractors on high-speed highways.

The law would apply statewide, but it was spurred with two roads in mind: the U.S. 17 bypasses around Elizabeth City, Edenton and Windsor, and U.S. 264 in Wilson and Pitt counties.

Laws: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2011/Bills/House/PDF/H1124v0.pdf (initial version, applying only to US 17 in Pasquotank County), http://www4.ncleg.net/sessions/2011/bills/senate/pdf/s749v6.pdf (final law)

Quote
(8) Equipment covered by this subsection shall not be operated on a highway or section  of  highway  that  is  a  fully  controlled  access highway  or  is  a  part  of the   National   System   of   Interstate   and   Defense   Highways without authorization  from  the  North  Carolina  Department  of  Transportation. The Department shall develop an authorization process and approve routes under the following conditions:
a. Persons  shall  submit  an  application  to  the Department requesting authorization  to operate  equipment  covered  by  this  subsection on a particular route that is part of a highway or section of highway that is a fully controlled access highway or is a part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways.
b. The  Department  shall  have  a  period  of  30  days  from  receipt  of  a complete application to approve or reject the application. A complete
application  shall  be  deemed  approved if  the  Department  does  not take action within 30 days of receipt by the Department; such a route may then
be used by the original applicant.
[...]
g. The  Department  shall publish  all  approved  routes,  including  any conditions  on  the  routes' use, and  shall notify  appropriate  State  and local law enforcement officers of any approved route.
h. Once approved for use and published by the Department, a route may be  used  by  any  person  who  adheres  to  the  route,  including  any conditions on the route's use imposed by the Department.
i. The  Department  may  revise  published  routes  as  road conditions on the routes change.

http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/Pages/Teppl-Topic-Original.aspx?Topic_List=F28

Quote
I 795 WAYNE Between US 70 and SR 1002, only during the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM daily.  Must be accompanied by a trailing escort vehicle at an appropriate distance for conditions, using a wide load banner, and with its emergency flashers operating.  Application F-16-2.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2018, 01:20:24 PM
Thanks for those links.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2018, 06:36:59 PM
The NC 133 bridge into Oak Island NC is closing Monday for six months of extensive reconstruction. Traffic will have to use the NC 906 bridge at the other end of the island. Since NC 133 is the connection to Southport and the commercial areas serving the area, this will be a big headache for folks on the island.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-09-oak-island-bridge-closure-six-months.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 09, 2018, 08:08:16 PM
A contract to widen a stretch of I-95 from 4 to 8 lanes will be awarded next spring. Two public meetings will be held later this month to discuss the project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx)

The first meeting in Benson has been postponed due to expected bad weather from the remnants of Hurricane Michael.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-09-benson-meeting-postponed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-09-benson-meeting-postponed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on October 09, 2018, 09:52:09 PM
http://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Teppl/Pages/Teppl-Topic-Original.aspx?Topic_List=F28

Looks like at least one of the approved sections has a frontage roads available.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 11, 2018, 01:34:33 AM
Two public meetings are being held (October 9 in Raleigh, October 11 in Wake Forest) regarding upgrading US-1 between I-540 and Purnell Road/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Presumably, this will become a freeway.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-02-public-meeting-improvements-raleigh.aspx)

Due to the incoming remnants of Hurricane Michael, the Wake Forest meeting has been postponed.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-10-public-meeting-wake-forest-postponed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-10-public-meeting-wake-forest-postponed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on October 14, 2018, 06:55:33 PM
New exit (66) on I-26 West in Columbus for US 74 East. Nothing has changed eastbound. It’s still just Exit 67. https://photos.app.goo.gl/wA4Foxvots8bPHAv7


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 15, 2018, 06:16:17 AM
67 Westbound is now just for NC 108 to Tryon, right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 15, 2018, 09:30:29 AM
New exit (66) on I-26 West in Columbus for US 74 East. Nothing has changed eastbound. It’s still just Exit 67. https://photos.app.goo.gl/wA4Foxvots8bPHAv7


iPhone

I see that they have enough room for an interstate shield once they make US74 into an interstate (more than likely lol).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 15, 2018, 06:07:19 PM
New exit (66) on I-26 West in Columbus for US 74 East. Nothing has changed eastbound. It’s still just Exit 67. https://photos.app.goo.gl/wA4Foxvots8bPHAv7


iPhone

The signing plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/09-19-17/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK%20I4729A%20C204039/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20I-4729A%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) didn't include updating the eastbound exit from 67 to 66. I don't know why, and if it will be. I'm assuming it was an oversight due to the rush to get the interchange completed before the World Equestrian Games, which have come and gone and the interchange still isn't done.

I'm still amazed that they removed a travel lane (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/09-19-17/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK%20I4729A%20C204039/Individual%20Sheets/100%20I-4729A%20Roadway%20Plans/100_087_I4729A_RDY_PSH07.pdf) from US 74 eastbound to make room for the above pictured on-ramp from I-26 WB to US 74 east so they didn't have to widen the existing bridge over Houston Rd. Spent $20 million+ to build two short ramps, including tons of excavation and building massive retaining walls, but they can't keep the existing number of lanes on 74 and cut capacity in half for 3/4 of the eastbound traffic as part of the "improvement" project.

67 Westbound is now just for NC 108 to Tryon, right?

Correct.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on October 15, 2018, 07:11:42 PM
I’m curious if they will change the control city to Charlotte on 26 East once they finish the Shelby Bypass.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 17, 2018, 01:58:10 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 17, 2018, 05:21:09 PM
And then it will be Business 40 no more.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 17, 2018, 06:12:00 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
I believe the back story on this is that NCDOT told residents, "We can close the road for 6-8 months and build the darn thing, or we can maintain traffic, but in that case the construction will last much longer." The public reply was, "Build it."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2018, 03:29:23 AM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 18, 2018, 09:01:43 AM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.

Maybe the communities along the 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will ask for an interstate designation at some point and NC will add it to the list lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2018, 09:17:11 AM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.

Maybe the communities along the 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will ask for an interstate designation at some point and NC will add it to the list lol.

That particular corridor has gotten a couple of shout-outs over in Fictional -- extended west to I-26 near Johnson City, TN -- as a potential 2di in the high-40's.  Wouldn't hold my breath; construction costs up around the Blue Ridge & around Boone would likely result in a "fail" as regards a CBE.  Its principal saving grace is that it allows a more direct route west than I-40 through Pisgah Gorge (and potentially less troublesome and prone to closures).  Nevertheless, presently on no official radar!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 18, 2018, 09:19:45 AM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.

Maybe the communities along the 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will ask for an interstate designation at some point and NC will add it to the list lol.

That particular corridor has gotten a couple of shout-outs over in Fictional -- extended west to I-26 near Johnson City, TN -- as a potential 2di in the high-40's.  Wouldn't hold my breath; construction costs up around the Blue Ridge & around Boone would likely result in a "fail" as regards a CBE.  Its principal saving grace is that it allows a more direct route west than I-40 through Pisgah Gorge (and potentially less troublesome and prone to closures).  Nevertheless, presently on no official radar!

I was only thinking of it as a 3di. It looks like it's a freeway between Winston-Salem and Wilkesboro already. They would probably have to upgrade it to interstate standards but I don't want to stray too far into fictional territory.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 18, 2018, 03:20:41 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen and make improvements to I-440 between Walnut Street and Wade Avenue. Construction to begin early next year and is expected to be finished by August 1, 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 18, 2018, 06:47:07 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.
Not likely. The city asked that the Business 40 signage be removed; presumably it would oppose any I-640 designation. It's not true that every place in NC is hot for new interstate routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 18, 2018, 06:50:21 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen and make improvements to I-440 between Walnut Street and Wade Avenue. Construction to begin early next year and is expected to be finished by August 1, 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx)
Good news. A complicated but badly needed project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 18, 2018, 08:31:36 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen and make improvements to I-440 between Walnut Street and Wade Avenue. Construction to begin early next year and is expected to be finished by August 1, 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-18-interstate-440-project-raleigh-awarded.aspx)
Good news. A complicated but badly needed project.

The project also includes the grade separation of the Blue Ridge Rd/Hillsborough St intersection and Blue Ridge Rd/NCRR crossing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 18, 2018, 08:37:20 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
I believe the back story on this is that NCDOT told residents, "We can close the road for 6-8 months and build the darn thing, or we can maintain traffic, but in that case the construction will last much longer." The public reply was, "Build it."

Any idea how much impact this will have on I-40 during construction? It's getting hard to go anywhere in the state without running into major highway construction (which is of course a good thing in the long term).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2018, 08:59:47 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.
Not likely. The city asked that the Business 40 signage be removed; presumably it would oppose any I-640 designation. It's not true that every place in NC is hot for new interstate routes.

I suppose W-S wants to keep the now Biz 40/now & future US 421 loop as primarily a local server; any Interstate reference, regardless of shield color, might be construed as an alternate through route -- and they'd like to funnel as much through traffic as possible onto the main I-40 trunk to the south.  The fact that I-74 is being diverted to an eastern bypass rather than simply tie in to US 52 underscores that city's resolve in that regard -- although I wonder how they'll rationalize the elevation of US 52 to I-285 in light of that local preference. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on October 19, 2018, 01:05:23 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility.
Not likely. The city asked that the Business 40 signage be removed; presumably it would oppose any I-640 designation. It's not true that every place in NC is hot for new interstate routes.

I suppose W-S wants to keep the now Biz 40/now & future US 421 loop as primarily a local server; any Interstate reference, regardless of shield color, might be construed as an alternate through route -- and they'd like to funnel as much through traffic as possible onto the main I-40 trunk to the south.  The fact that I-74 is being diverted to an eastern bypass rather than simply tie in to US 52 underscores that city's resolve in that regard -- although I wonder how they'll rationalize the elevation of US 52 to I-285 in light of that local preference.
That segment of I40 in Winston was opened in 1992ish if I recall but it feels somehow substandard / tight. There is not a full shoulder between the left lane and the Jersey Barriers, I think. It is usually the worst part of my frequent trips between Cary and Asheville (I take the southern bypass around Greensboro to avoid Death Valley). It will only get worse during the reconstruction of Green 40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on October 19, 2018, 07:05:23 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 19, 2018, 07:46:41 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 19, 2018, 08:38:35 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s

What was it designated when it opened? Was the plan always for it to be a bypass of I-40?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 19, 2018, 09:04:40 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s

What was it designated when it opened? Was the plan always for it to be a bypass of I-40?

The 1980 Forsythe County map shows this as SR 3827.  The road is shown east to the E. Clemmonsville Rd interchange with ramps extending to NC 109 Thomasville Rd.

The 1990 version shows no designation of any kind though no existing primary route was using it either...

The 1992 Route Change document to add I-40 to it did not mention the designations it was usurping when it was placed on this routing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on October 19, 2018, 11:11:07 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility. 

Did anyone notice on the animation for the road that one direction has 3 lanes, but the other one only has one?  Also am I the only person who thinks the freeway should be 6 or 8 lanes instead of 4?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 20, 2018, 01:03:07 AM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)
And then it will be Business 40 no more.

And that's not particularly a bad thing; business-loop freeways, invariably over old Interstate alignments, have always seemed to me to be a bit gratuitous and more than a bit pointless, especially when an appropriate alternate designation is available.  Since US 421 has been the historic E-W route through town for several decades now, utilizing it as the primary designation of the downtown freeway server is most fitting -- if NCDOT can resist the temptation to slap something like I-640 on the improved facility. 

Did anyone notice on the animation for the road that one direction has 3 lanes, but the other one only has one?  Also am I the only person who thinks the freeway should be 6 or 8 lanes instead of 4?

Probably ROW constraints or the city pushing for a simpler parkway rather than a modern high-capacity freeway. A six-lane widening seems like something NCDOT would normally do, like what they have planned for the four-lane part of I-440 in Raleigh.

They do seem to have long-term plans to widen Business 40 Salem Parkway to six lanes at least east of US 52 (future I-285?). All the new bridges are designed to accommodate this. Hopefully they redo the cloverleaf with 52. That interchange seems pretty underpowered for an interchange between two downtown freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 20, 2018, 04:05:19 PM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 20, 2018, 05:09:34 PM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being?

I thought below I-40 was all that is sure to get I-285 for the time being, albeit with eventual plans to extend it north. Did it get approved all the way up to the Northern Beltway despite the substandard parts of US 52?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 20, 2018, 05:14:38 PM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being?

I thought below I-40 was all that is sure to get I-285 for the time being, albeit with eventual plans to extend it north. Did it get approved all the way up to the Northern Beltway despite the substandard parts of US 52?

I-285 was only approved between I-85 and I-40. NCDOT would need to send another application to AASHTO & FHWA if they want to extend I-285 to the future I-74 interchange.

As for US-52 in downtown Winston-Salem, there was a project done a few years ago that brought it up to interstate standards, IIRC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 21, 2018, 01:10:28 AM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being?

I thought below I-40 was all that is sure to get I-285 for the time being, albeit with eventual plans to extend it north. Did it get approved all the way up to the Northern Beltway despite the substandard parts of US 52?

I-285 was only approved between I-85 and I-40. NCDOT would need to send another application to AASHTO & FHWA if they want to extend I-285 to the future I-74 interchange.

As for US-52 in downtown Winston-Salem, there was a project done a few years ago that brought it up to interstate standards, IIRC.

Makes sense -- thanks!  Extending I-285 any further north than I-40 would, regardless of whether or not the NE I-74 belt is completed, be a pointless exercise until the rest of US 52 north to the completed I-74 connection to I-77 is appropriately upgraded. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on October 21, 2018, 09:31:22 AM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being?

I thought below I-40 was all that is sure to get I-285 for the time being, albeit with eventual plans to extend it north. Did it get approved all the way up to the Northern Beltway despite the substandard parts of US 52?

I-285 was only approved between I-85 and I-40. NCDOT would need to send another application to AASHTO & FHWA if they want to extend I-285 to the future I-74 interchange.

As for US-52 in downtown Winston-Salem, there was a project done a few years ago that brought it up to interstate standards, IIRC.

Makes sense -- thanks!  Extending I-285 any further north than I-40 would, regardless of whether or not the NE I-74 belt is completed, be a pointless exercise until the rest of US 52 north to the completed I-74 connection to I-77 is appropriately upgraded.
I think they will upgrade it to 77 eventually, just not in the next 10 years if we're going off of the STIP. I'm not sure how much of a hurry they're in to build it since it will only go till the VA state line and won't be upgraded past that.

Correction: I guess they only have to upgrade it up to Mount Airy. I-77 to Mount Airy is already I-74 according to http://www.malmeroads.net/i7374nc/prog74.html.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on October 21, 2018, 10:12:54 AM
^^^^^^^
Speaking of I-285 -- the signage of that route was slated to begin either later this year or in early 2019.  Given that the extension of the I-74 NE loop portion won't get to US 52 for a few years, will that I-285 signage end at I-40 for the time being? 


I’ve periodically checked the NC letting website to check for sign plans...nothin yet though. Plus I typically go 85/52 when I go to W-S for that reason. It’ll get done eventually :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 22, 2018, 04:04:51 PM
A contract to widen a stretch of I-95 from 4 to 8 lanes will be awarded next spring. Two public meetings will be held later this month to discuss the project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-01-i-95-widening-set-to-begin.aspx)

The first meeting in Benson has been postponed due to expected bad weather from the remnants of Hurricane Michael.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-09-benson-meeting-postponed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-09-benson-meeting-postponed.aspx)

That meeting is now scheduled for November 8.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-22-i-95-open-house-rescheduled.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-22-i-95-open-house-rescheduled.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 23, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
NCDOT Press Release regarding the start of the project to widen I-40 east (south) of Raleigh. Guess who forgot about I-87 again?:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-23-contractors-begin-paving-i-40-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-23-contractors-begin-paving-i-40-widening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2018, 01:48:43 PM
NCDOT Press Release regarding the start of the project to widen I-40 east (south) of Raleigh. Guess who forgot about I-87 again?:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-23-contractors-begin-paving-i-40-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-23-contractors-begin-paving-i-40-widening.aspx)

I'd guess that whoever is preparing the press releases just hasn't internalized I-87 as of yet -- or possibly they're just not talking about it until projects to upgrade the substandard segments of US 64 are programmed (giving themselves more than a few initial miles to talk about!).  And since I-440 has been around for some time and achieved local significance by now, it would serve more as a recognized location reference than a designation that's only been in existence about 2 years.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 24, 2018, 02:33:15 PM
I'm sure Interstate 87 will be fully signed along its corridor in due time. Have some patience.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on October 24, 2018, 02:41:00 PM
I'm sure Interstate 87 will be fully signed along its corridor in due time. Have some patience.
No.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2018, 08:11:39 AM
Ridge Road residents aren’t too happy with NCDOT regarding the possible effects of the upcoming I-440/Glenwood Avenue interchange project...

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 25, 2018, 06:31:14 PM
Ridge Road residents aren’t too happy with NCDOT regarding the possible effects of the upcoming I-440/Glenwood Avenue interchange project...

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html)
This is going to be a tough one for NCDOT, and they know it. Of course, the claim that “The problem with Glenwood is commuter traffic, not mall traffic”  is silly, the problem is commuter traffic AND mall traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 26, 2018, 06:37:32 PM
NCDOT will hold a public hearing on 4-laning a section of US 601 in Surry County. The plans show what is now the standard for at-grade rural 4-lanes: U-turns in place of left turns onto the highway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5836-2018-11-01.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 27, 2018, 03:21:10 AM
Ridge Road residents aren’t too happy with NCDOT regarding the possible effects of the upcoming I-440/Glenwood Avenue interchange project...

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220539475.html)
This is going to be a tough one for NCDOT, and they know it. Of course, the claim that “The problem with Glenwood is commuter traffic, not mall traffic”  is silly, the problem is commuter traffic AND mall traffic.

I agree. I’ve only driven Glenwood Ave a few times, but it definitely seemed like mall traffic was just as much of a problem as commuter traffic.

The mall was built in a bad location IMO, but I digress...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on October 27, 2018, 08:01:46 AM
The latest line from NCDOT is to not connect Ridge to Glenwood at all which should put every concern that is not simply hyperventilating to rest. There is some lady with a horse farm on that corner and is concerned about losing a smallish corner of it. Sorry, but no. However, if I lived on Ridge Road I probably wouldn't want that connection either (well, I would support a pedestrian connection over the new bridge, but not one for cars.) Glen Eden isn't that far away for when you are driving to the mall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 29, 2018, 12:25:14 PM
Due to the current resurfacing project on I-40, there will be loop closures at the I-95/I-40 interchange in Benson beginning Oct. 29.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-29-loop-closures-i-95-i-40-johnston.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-29-loop-closures-i-95-i-40-johnston.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 29, 2018, 02:19:33 PM
NCDOT has announced some public hearings for major projects in the Triangle area.

(1) Improvements to US 70 immediately to the west of I-540.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5518-U-5720-2018-10-30.aspx
All alternatives call for a SPUI at Briar Creek Parkway (replacing a major stoplight), but there are several ideas concerning how to handle the intersection with Alexander Drive just to the west. This project is the start of the proposed upgrade of US 70 to a freeway between I-540 and Future I-885 in Durham.

(2) Widening of I-40 between US 15/501 and the I-85 split.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-3306A-2018-11-05.aspx
This is a straightforward widening project, which should not be controversial at all. There are some changes to the interchange at NC 86 north of Chapel Hill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 29, 2018, 05:25:32 PM
NCDOT has announced some public hearings for major projects in the Triangle area.

(2) Widening of I-40 between US 15/501 and the I-85 split.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-3306A-2018-11-05.aspx
This is a straightforward widening project, which should not be controversial at all. There are some changes to the interchange at NC 86 north of Chapel Hill.

I was surprised to see this meeting announced, since the project isn't even funded in the current STIP, and isn't funded for construction in the draft STIP until 2026. Maybe it's been accelerated and hasn't made it into the documents yet? As you said, it's a conventional widening without much impact, so I can't imagine the need to have a meeting seven years before they even start acquiring additional right-of-way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
I suppose everybody in Charlotte knew this but it was news to me: the Monroe Expressway (US 74 Bypass) is scheduled to open in late November.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-30-toll-system-demonstration.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 30, 2018, 10:03:27 PM
Just wanted to mention that the upgrade to I-40, Exit 112 is underway.   I cannot wait until widening I-40 to 6-8 lanes makes it to the top of the list, it is really at a choke point from MP 100-132.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 31, 2018, 06:03:33 AM
My sister in law drives from Hickory to Morganton daily.  She's going to be hating life for a while.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 31, 2018, 06:03:44 PM
Just wanted to mention that the upgrade to I-40, Exit 112 is underway.   I cannot wait until widening I-40 to 6-8 lanes makes it to the top of the list, it is really at a choke point from MP 100-132.

The section between exits 123 (US-321) to 128 has made it into the draft STIP for widening to six lanes, but it's probably going to be awhile before it gets widened to Morganton. The project is at least under consideration.

My sister in law drives from Hickory to Morganton daily.  She's going to be hating life for a while.

Are they narrowing lanes on 40 during construction?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 31, 2018, 09:48:16 PM
No Lane narrowing yet, but multiple interchanges will be upgraded: 116,112,107,103,100.  105&104 are already upgraded, and no news on 106 (Bethel Rd), I have a feeling it may be eliminated
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on November 01, 2018, 05:56:56 AM
Just wanted to mention that the upgrade to I-40, Exit 112 is underway.   I cannot wait until widening I-40 to 6-8 lanes makes it to the top of the list, it is really at a choke point from MP 100-132.

The section between exits 123 (US-321) to 128 has made it into the draft STIP for widening to six lanes, but it's probably going to be awhile before it gets widened to Morganton. The project is at least under consideration.

My sister in law drives from Hickory to Morganton daily.  She's going to be hating life for a while.

Are they narrowing lanes on 40 during construction?

I figured they would be soon enough.  I think she gets off I-40 at Bethel Road, but I'm not sure.  Glad my commute for now is only 10 minutes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2018, 12:35:47 PM
A 1.2-mile stretch of Business 40 in Winston-Salem between Peters Creek Parkway and US-52 will close on November 11 and reopen in summer 2019. Project info here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-10-16-business-40-closure-date.aspx)

The closure date has been pushed back to Nov. 17 due to wet weather.

https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business_40/rain-date-wet-weather-pushes-business-closure-to-nov/article_edef59d7-ab93-5a0d-90fd-92011baa15e4.html (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business_40/rain-date-wet-weather-pushes-business-closure-to-nov/article_edef59d7-ab93-5a0d-90fd-92011baa15e4.html)
Title: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on November 07, 2018, 06:56:59 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s

What was it designated when it opened? Was the plan always for it to be a bypass of I-40?

The 1980 Forsythe County map shows this as SR 3827.  The road is shown east to the E. Clemmonsville Rd interchange with ramps extending to NC 109 Thomasville Rd.

The 1990 version shows no designation of any kind though no existing primary route was using it either...

The 1992 Route Change document to add I-40 to it did not mention the designations it was usurping when it was placed on this routing.




It was called Corporation Freeway I think and it became Peters Creek Pkwy before it was tied into the new I-40 in the 90’s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 08, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
NCDOT has announced some public hearings for major projects in the Triangle area.

(1) Improvements to US 70 immediately to the west of I-540.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5518-U-5720-2018-10-30.aspx
All alternatives call for a SPUI at Briar Creek Parkway (replacing a major stoplight), but there are several ideas concerning how to handle the intersection with Alexander Drive just to the west. This project is the start of the proposed upgrade of US 70 to a freeway between I-540 and Future I-885 in Durham.

Not that it needs it, but are they planning on making this an interstate too? I only ask because it is NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 08, 2018, 03:58:03 PM
NCDOT has announced some public hearings for major projects in the Triangle area.

(1) Improvements to US 70 immediately to the west of I-540.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5518-U-5720-2018-10-30.aspx
All alternatives call for a SPUI at Briar Creek Parkway (replacing a major stoplight), but there are several ideas concerning how to handle the intersection with Alexander Drive just to the west. This project is the start of the proposed upgrade of US 70 to a freeway between I-540 and Future I-885 in Durham.

Not that it needs it, but are they planning on making this an interstate too? I only ask because it is NC.

No.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on November 08, 2018, 09:06:46 PM
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s

What was it designated when it opened? Was the plan always for it to be a bypass of I-40?
^ I believe the section of “New 40”  from Silas Creek Pkwy to I-74/US 311 (the substandard section) is much older than 1992.  On either side of that section was 1992 vintage and is definitely at modern interstate standards.  I never rode on the old stretch prior to all of it being completed, but I’m going to assume that additional lanes were added prior to it becoming I-40.  And since 1992, the only improvement I can think of that has occurred is a second overpass at the Union Cross Rd exit and it’s conversion to a DDI.


Yes, the short segment you describe was opened in the early 1970s

What was it designated when it opened? Was the plan always for it to be a bypass of I-40?

I lived in Winston-Salem area in 1970's and drove through that area many times.  If you were driving south on Silas Creek parkway.  After you crossed the intersection with Peters Creek Parkway, the road became Corporation Parkway, a six lane boulevard with traffic signals.  After passing the Flow Motors car dealer that was on the left the road transitioned to expressway.  There was no signed designation.  There was a traffic signal at Main Street though, so it was only a freeway from that point to the east.  This section was called Corporation Freeway, and there was a BGS that indicated this.  The freeway section went east to cross under US-52.  From that point is was US-311, which had been relocated to US-52 Freeway, and it departed from it to Corporation Freeway.  The freeway ended at NC-109, and there was a transition road that continued to the old US-311.  Later the US-311 freeway was built to High Point opened around 1990.  It was only a couple of years
 that the section from NC-109 to where now US-311 departs to the south was rebuilt again to become I-40.  I have not been there in over 20 years, but I believe that Silas Creek Parkway name was extended over Corporation Parkway.  I am not sure where it ends now but the part from west of Main Street is now incorporated into part of I-40 instead, and now there is an overpass instead of a traffic signal. 

I am not sure if that section was planned to be part of I-40 bypass or not, but at least built as freeway connection  to US-52 and further east, as a bypass for US-311
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 09, 2018, 10:02:14 AM
NCDOT has announced some public hearings for major projects in the Triangle area.

(2) Widening of I-40 between US 15/501 and the I-85 split.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-3306A-2018-11-05.aspx
This is a straightforward widening project, which should not be controversial at all. There are some changes to the interchange at NC 86 north of Chapel Hill.

I was surprised to see this meeting announced, since the project isn't even funded in the current STIP, and isn't funded for construction in the draft STIP until 2026. Maybe it's been accelerated and hasn't made it into the documents yet? As you said, it's a conventional widening without much impact, so I can't imagine the need to have a meeting seven years before they even start acquiring additional right-of-way.

I found this article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220890315.html) and it goes into detail about why it wasn't in the STIP.

Quote
NCDOT began planning for the widening of this 11-mile stretch of I-40 in 2012, Tarascio said. But when the state adopted a new system for determining whether a road should be built or widened, this project didn’t score very well and was shelved, he said.

NCDOT engineers have since determined that the project didn’t appear necessary in part because the backups around U.S. 15/501 weren’t being factored in, Tarascio said. That stretch of I-40 in Durham County is in a different NCDOT division.

Now engineers have accounted for that congestion in their evaluation and expect the widening of I-40 in Orange County to qualify for funding starting next year. If that happens, NCDOT would begin acquiring right-of-way in 2021 and begin construction in 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 09, 2018, 11:26:51 AM
"Corporation Freeway" sounds so dystopian.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 09, 2018, 02:37:47 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-09-this-week-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-09-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

Quote
U.S. 421 Reopening

The Department of Transportation has reopened a key route to and from the Wilmington area following severe damage from Hurricane Florence. U.S. 421, which runs parallel to Interstate 40 in southeastern North Carolina, received the most damage of any state road when the storm hit in September.

Knowing the critical need to quickly restore traffic on this route, NCDOT installed a temporary bridge on one side of the road, with a single lane in each direction. This allows drivers to get through the area while planning and construction of two new bridges at the site takes place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 13, 2018, 09:43:03 AM
The Record of Decision for building a tolled Mid-Currituck Bridge has been delayed.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on November 13, 2018, 04:46:26 PM
The Record of Decision for building a tolled Mid-Currituck Bridge has been delayed.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html)

The picture dictates there will be a “toll plaza,”  so is it safe to say it will be different than the free flowing NC 540 and US 74 tolled roads? They should stay consistent IMHO and design it the same way as its Raleigh and Charlotte freeways :-]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 13, 2018, 06:09:32 PM
The Record of Decision for building a tolled Mid-Currituck Bridge has been delayed.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html)

The picture dictates there will be a “toll plaza,”  so is it safe to say it will be different than the free flowing NC 540 and US 74 tolled roads? They should stay consistent IMHO and design it the same way as its Raleigh and Charlotte freeways :-]
Just guessing now: it may be that they're expecting a larger fraction of drivers to be tourists coming from places that don't have toll roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 14, 2018, 05:19:17 PM
The Record of Decision for building a tolled Mid-Currituck Bridge has been delayed.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/13/ROD-of-decision-on-Mid-Currituck-Bridge-still-not-ready.html)

The picture dictates there will be a “toll plaza,”  so is it safe to say it will be different than the free flowing NC 540 and US 74 tolled roads? They should stay consistent IMHO and design it the same way as its Raleigh and Charlotte freeways :-]
Just guessing now: it may be that they're expecting a larger fraction of drivers to be tourists coming from places that don't have toll roads.

The past few times I've been to the OBX it has seemed like the majority of license plates have been MD, NJ, NY, OH, and PA. I'm not sure what sort of costs are associated with out-of-state billing.

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on November 14, 2018, 05:25:08 PM

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.

That's a great point!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: triplemultiplex on November 15, 2018, 11:29:30 AM

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.

That's a great point!

Nonsense. They have EZ Pass on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.

The fact that most of their tourists are coming from further north only adds merit to electronic toll collection; specifically, EZ Pass compatible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 15, 2018, 12:28:36 PM

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.

That's a great point!

Nonsense. They have EZ Pass on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.

The fact that most of their tourists are coming from further north only adds merit to electronic toll collection; specifically, EZ Pass compatible.

I'm not referring to E-ZPass at a covered toll plaza. I mean the exposed gantries (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8566567,-78.8574288,3a,75y,22.5h,97.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30QBdnEh57awGx8OTWSKyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like you see on the Triangle Expressway and will see on the Monroe Expressway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2018, 01:34:18 PM

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.

That's a great point!

Nonsense. They have EZ Pass on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.

The fact that most of their tourists are coming from further north only adds merit to electronic toll collection; specifically, EZ Pass compatible.

I'm not referring to E-ZPass at a covered toll plaza. I mean the exposed gantries (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8566567,-78.8574288,3a,75y,22.5h,97.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30QBdnEh57awGx8OTWSKyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like you see on the Triangle Expressway and will see on the Monroe Expressway.

The fly in that ointment is that such "exposed gantries" exist in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.  Elsewhere in Hampton Roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8115468,-76.2828907,3a,75y,56.69h,82.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2w8y66ZZqCTc0joDG8kRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), too.  So your argument still doesn't really hold water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on November 15, 2018, 02:24:28 PM
First off, the start/end of the new route is at an intersection so traffic will need to stop anyway.  Would open-road tolling add much value if traffic is slow/stopped already anyway?  Secondly, out-of-state tolling with the cameras is cost-prohibitive.  IIRC North Carolina is only able to collect from states where they have an agreement in place.  540 and the Monroe bypass will be primarily local traffic; the Currituck bridge would have a lot more tourist traffic from out of state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on November 15, 2018, 02:34:59 PM
First off, the start/end of the new route is at an intersection so traffic will need to stop anyway.  Would open-road tolling add much value if traffic is slow/stopped already anyway?  Secondly, out-of-state tolling with the cameras is cost-prohibitive.  IIRC North Carolina is only able to collect from states where they have an agreement in place.  540 and the Monroe bypass will be primarily local traffic; the Currituck bridge would have a lot more tourist traffic from out of state.
...almost all of which would come from EZ-Pass states. In fact, since I assume any tolling plaza built would support NC Quick Pass, the closest state without a compliant transponder would be Tennessee. I dunno if they should use only Open-Road Tolling for this bridge, but this argument against it doesn't hold water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 15, 2018, 04:43:19 PM
First off, the start/end of the new route is at an intersection so traffic will need to stop anyway.  Would open-road tolling add much value if traffic is slow/stopped already anyway?  Secondly, out-of-state tolling with the cameras is cost-prohibitive.  IIRC North Carolina is only able to collect from states where they have an agreement in place.  540 and the Monroe bypass will be primarily local traffic; the Currituck bridge would have a lot more tourist traffic from out of state.

One would think that NC 540, being in a location ("Research Triangle") that draws visitors from just about everywhere, would be a prime location to install OTR systems compatible with as many variations as possible.  And while the main purpose of the US 74 Monroe bypass is initially as eastern egress to and from metro Charlotte, when the Shelby bypass is finished to the west along US 74, it'll probably be used as part of a "shortcut" from the Asheville area (and points west along I-26 and I-40) to the coast, cutting time and mileage off a strictly I-40 routing.  It, too, would benefit from maximum OTR compatibility -- better sooner than later! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 15, 2018, 04:46:53 PM
Quote from: HazMatt
Secondly, out-of-state tolling with the cameras is cost-prohibitive.

Really?  Tell that to MdTA (MD 200/ICC) or MassDOT (I-90/Mass Pike)...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 15, 2018, 05:53:48 PM

I suspect all of the cameras, sensors, lights, etc. required for electronic tolling won't hold up so well to the salt, wind and nor'easters.

That's a great point!

Nonsense. They have EZ Pass on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.

The fact that most of their tourists are coming from further north only adds merit to electronic toll collection; specifically, EZ Pass compatible.

I'm not referring to E-ZPass at a covered toll plaza. I mean the exposed gantries (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8566567,-78.8574288,3a,75y,22.5h,97.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30QBdnEh57awGx8OTWSKyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) like you see on the Triangle Expressway and will see on the Monroe Expressway.

The fly in that ointment is that such "exposed gantries" exist in Delaware, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.  Elsewhere in Hampton Roads (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8115468,-76.2828907,3a,75y,56.69h,82.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw2w8y66ZZqCTc0joDG8kRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), too.  So your argument still doesn't really hold water.

Relax. I'm only suggesting a possible reason why North Carolina isn't implementing the same all-electronic tolling system they're using on all of their other toll roads in the state. There's nothing indicating that there won't be dedicated NC Quick Pass/E-ZPass lanes at the toll plaza (like at the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel toll plazas, and practically everywhere else).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 16, 2018, 12:02:09 PM
A public meeting is being held in Riegelwood on Nov. 28 to discuss converting the NC-87/NC-11 intersection into an interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-15-columbus-county-interchange-proposed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-15-columbus-county-interchange-proposed.aspx)

Meanwhile, NCDOT and Wilson’s finest are looking for the driver of a semi that struck a bridge on US-301 in Elm City and left the scene.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-15-wilson-truck-damages-bridge-public-help.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-15-wilson-truck-damages-bridge-public-help.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 16, 2018, 09:02:13 PM
Regarding the I-85 rebuild project between Henderson and the Virginia state line, all lanes of I-85 are now open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on November 16, 2018, 10:58:41 PM
Regarding the I-85 rebuild project between Henderson and the Virginia state line, all lanes of I-85 are now open.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx)

So is it all complete now?  If so that is great news, as that section has been horrendous for at least 20 years.

Any other badly deteriorated sections south of Henderson?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 17, 2018, 07:17:31 PM
Regarding the I-85 rebuild project between Henderson and the Virginia state line, all lanes of I-85 are now open.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-16-milestone-i-85-rehab-vance-warren.aspx)

So is it all complete now?  If so that is great news, as that section has been horrendous for at least 20 years.

Any other badly deteriorated sections south of Henderson?
The section between Henderson and the VA line was by far the worst part of I-85 in NC, so this is very good news. The section between Henderson and Falls Lake, north of Durham, is in much better shape. There's a need to widen and rebuild the section approaching Durham from the north as well as the section west of Durham to the I-40 split.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: seicer on November 17, 2018, 10:30:34 PM
The one-and-only asphalt overlay (for at least a lot of that segment) only lasted less than 10 years. You can see the original concrete pavement, in a rather poor condition, on Streetview dating to 2008. Considering that the highway was built in 1957, that couldn't have been the original pavement?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 18, 2018, 07:56:14 AM
The one-and-only asphalt overlay (for at least a lot of that segment) only lasted less than 10 years. You can see the original concrete pavement, in a rather poor condition, on Streetview dating to 2008. Considering that the highway was built in 1957, that couldn't have been the original pavement?

Was this a full-depth reconstruction with new concrete, or did they just diamond-grind the original?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 18, 2018, 11:41:32 AM
Full depth reconstruction with concrete, a luxury rarely given to roads in the Northeast. I wouldn't be surprised if it was original up to 2008. Mild climate combined with lower traffic counts make it a possibility. Parts of I-85 further north in VA had what appeared to be original concrete until a few years ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 18, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
Full depth reconstruction with concrete, a luxury rarely given to roads in the Northeast. I wouldn't be surprised if it was original up to 2008. Mild climate combined with lower traffic counts make it a possibility. Parts of I-85 further north in VA had what appeared to be original concrete until a few years ago.

Was definitely the original concrete on I-85 btw Henderson and Virginia up to 2008, as is any concrete remaining on 85 in Virginia.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on November 18, 2018, 02:28:48 PM
Full depth reconstruction with concrete, a luxury rarely given to roads in the Northeast. I wouldn't be surprised if it was original up to 2008. Mild climate combined with lower traffic counts make it a possibility. Parts of I-85 further north in VA had what appeared to be original concrete until a few years ago.

VA I-85 north of MP 40 and south of MP 63 was built with concrete pavement.  The rehab projects keep the original concrete pavement.  First the concrete is rehabbed by replacing any deteriorated sections (in toto somewhere between 5% and 15% of any mile of pavement), repairing joints, and then overlaying with several layers of asphalt pavement.  Also rehabbing and overlaying the asphalt shoulders. 

In my opinion this process provides a finished product just as fine and durable as a new concrete pavement, and for lower total costs.  Full depth reconstruction with concrete is an unnecessary luxury, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: seicer on November 18, 2018, 06:10:10 PM
Depends on the age and condition. I've seen rehabbed concrete pavements, with joint replacement, last about 10 to 15 years on average before needing major work.

I-64 between Frankfort and Midway, Kentucky, finished circa 1972, is still on its original pavement and was just diamond ground after numerous full-depth repairs for the second time. Aerial (https://goo.gl/maps/VGq7eau3VYv). You can see just how much has been replaced with the prior project and the one that proceeded it around 2003.

Portions of I-88 in New York was diamond ground some years back (2003?) but it is in ridiculous condition. I posted a video in the New York forum of how jarring the expansion joints had become and why most drivers just stick to the left lane where the circa 1980 concrete still exists. Some of the absolute worst pavement I've ever driven on was the southernmost (and newest) section of I-88, which after 29 years was finally repaired with asphalt and diamond ground. Aerial (https://goo.gl/maps/tpP5F3t7GsJ2).

I can't imagine how bad I-81 would be if the concrete still remained and was repaired on a continual basis. With each asphalt overlay, the state will go in and complete full-depth repairs to the joints, but it's still a bumpy ride - even after the asphalt overlay is complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on November 18, 2018, 07:08:19 PM
I was referring to concrete pavement that receives a full structural rehab of the concrete to repair places that are damaged or deteriorated, and -then- overlaying the whole thing with 4 to 6 inches of asphalt pavement.  It is no longer merely concrete pavement, but is what highway engineers call composite pavement.  The final product is every bit as good as brand new concrete pavement, and costs a lot less to build, and can be performed with daily single lane closures. 

Full replacement of concrete pavement requires closing one whole roadway for several months and running two-way traffic on the other roadway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 19, 2018, 06:40:33 PM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 19, 2018, 07:19:51 PM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf

So is it reasonably certain at this point that Alternative 4B is being selected?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 20, 2018, 10:12:24 AM
Update on the 10th Street Connector project in Greenville.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/20/Planning-board-to-hear-revised-Watauga-Avenue-request.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2018/11/20/Planning-board-to-hear-revised-Watauga-Avenue-request.html)

Quote
The N.C. Department of Transportation is installing brick crosswalks at the intersection of 10th and Evans streets as part of the ongoing work to complete the 10th Street Connector. The sidewalks are among several design elements meant to enhance the roadway as a new gateway to the the city and the main campus of East Carolina University.

Detours in the area are expected to remain in place through Dec. 14, when the sidewalk work is expected to be completed. The connector itself will not open until the spring of 2019 at the earliest, Sarah Lentine, the DOT’s resident engineer in Pitt County, said on Monday.

Crews are scheduled to begin paving the main line and side roads connecting to project in April and May, Lentine said. The road will be ready to open before summer provided weather cause no delays, she said, but no portion of the project will open until then.

In addition to the DOT work on Evans, crews working for the city have shut down Fourth Street just east of Reade Street through February as part of ongoing updates to the Town Creek Culvert. Traffic has been rerouted to East Third Street, which reopened after a culvert collapse nearly three years ago, at East Fifth, which will close after the work at Fourth Street is completed.

The city also is installing traffic safety delineators at six busy intersections this month. The delineators limit left turns and through traffic in center turn lanes at the intersections.

The locations include Charles Boulevard at Turnbury, Smythewyck, Elm Street and Oakmont Drive; Arlington Boulevard and Wimbledon Drive and Greenville Boulevard at Belvedere Drive.

Project page:

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/government/public-works/major-projects/tenth-street-connector-project (https://www.greenvillenc.gov/government/public-works/major-projects/tenth-street-connector-project)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 20, 2018, 10:41:12 AM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf

So is it reasonably certain at this point that Alternative 4B is being selected?

More than likely. It was their Preferred Alternative back in 2015 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/section-b-alternative-maps.aspx). So unless something changed, it will be Alternative 4B.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 21, 2018, 09:09:57 AM
I spotted a lot more construction along I-95 between Exits 100 and 107, and I got some pictures from the proposed realignment of the Truck Stop Road bridge (Exit 106), which I'm hoping to upload soon.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 21, 2018, 09:13:00 AM
Avoiding Charlotte -- On Friday, my wife and I drove to Charlotte for the Southern Living Christmas Show and sat in heavy, slow traffic from around Mooresville all the way to the I-277 exit. We saw the same heavy traffic heading north on Saturday. I started looking for a way around that construction abomination for our trip to Florida on Tuesday. Saw U.S. 321 to the west running from I-40, but that route would have required a backtrack on I-85 to I-485 or travel on South Carolina back roads (after getting out of Gastonia) to hit I-77 further south. Then I saw NC 16, which ran from I-40 to I-485. A view on Google maps showed it to be mostly four-lane, so I took a chance. Interesting highway with the usual North Carolina "no rhyme or reason" construction. We got off at exit 133, Rock Barn Road, and took a short jaunt over to NC 16. Followed that south through a suburban area without much traffic until we go to the junction of Business NC 16. From there south there was construction to add two new lanes to the current two-lane highway. In the middle of the project, which was at various stages of grading, was a section with fresh asphalt lanes but a lot of work still to be done. From there, the grading went from almost ready to pave to working on the subgrade to rough grading to "well, that's where the road will be." The location of the paving really didn't make sense in the overall scheme -- but it's North Carolina. Once we got close to Killian Crossroads, the divided highway started and it was smooth sailing to I-485. That section of highway was interesting, left turns across traffic from side roads isn't permitted. One has to turn right, travel a short distance, then change direction via a dedicated U-turn crossover.

The end result was we kept moving at a good clip and didn't lose any time trying to get through/around Charlotte via I-77. NC 16 is a nice alternative.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 21, 2018, 09:22:45 AM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf

Here's a link (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/i2513-u5868-2018-12-04.aspx) to the detailed section maps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 21, 2018, 09:36:00 AM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf

Here's a link (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/i2513-u5868-2018-12-04.aspx) to the detailed section maps.

I notice they reduced plans for the I-240 concurrent section from eight lanes to six. They also removed all the detailed PDF maps for the old alternatives since yesterday. Fortunately I downloaded them a while back.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 25, 2018, 05:31:24 PM
Weird, but I'm becoming mysteriously more fascinated with the roads of Four Oaks. There's so much interesting stuff about it. The old northbound off-ramp and southbound on-ramp at Hockaday Mill Road, the US 301-701-NC 96 interchange, the Old NC 96... and last month I snapped pics of the roads of the area that I'm still in the process of posting in the Wikimedia Commons.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 07:57:13 PM
What's this blank shield space (https://goo.gl/maps/6gPCDdjqNML2) supposed to be for on this APL near Wilmington? :hmmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 28, 2018, 09:10:44 PM
What's this blank shield space (https://goo.gl/maps/6gPCDdjqNML2) supposed to be for on this APL near Wilmington? :hmmm:

Probably a "TO WEST I-74" trailblazer if and when that facility was extended east to Bolton, where it is currently slated to turn SE toward US 17.   Alternately: a x74 3di if that is designated in the interim.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on November 28, 2018, 10:31:11 PM
What's this blank shield space (https://goo.gl/maps/6gPCDdjqNML2) supposed to be for on this APL near Wilmington? :hmmm:
Probably a "TO WEST I-74" trailblazer if and when that facility was extended east to Bolton, where it is currently slated to turn SE toward US 17.   Alternately: a x74 3di if that is designated in the interim.
Or plain I-74 if the route is changed to end in Wilmington instead of Myrtle Beach.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 11:11:55 PM
What's this blank shield space (https://goo.gl/maps/6gPCDdjqNML2) supposed to be for on this APL near Wilmington? :hmmm:
Probably a "TO WEST I-74" trailblazer if and when that facility was extended east to Bolton, where it is currently slated to turn SE toward US 17.   Alternately: a x74 3di if that is designated in the interim.
Or plain I-74 if the route is changed to end in Wilmington instead of Myrtle Beach.

Whatever it is can't be both "To" and a direction since there isn't enough room, and even if NCDOT would rather reroute I-74 to Wilmington, having the interstate shield last after the two US routes is unusual if not disallowed entirely by the MUTCD. It would have to be "To I-X," or just "To" any other route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 29, 2018, 09:47:37 AM
Probably a "TO WEST I-74" trailblazer if and when that facility was extended east to Bolton, where it is currently slated to turn SE toward US 17.   Alternately: a x74 3di if that is designated in the interim.
Or plain I-74 if the route is changed to end in Wilmington instead of Myrtle Beach.

 You know that isn't happening, keep dreaming.  :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 30, 2018, 03:05:26 AM
Probably a "TO WEST I-74" trailblazer if and when that facility was extended east to Bolton, where it is currently slated to turn SE toward US 17.   Alternately: a x74 3di if that is designated in the interim.
Or plain I-74 if the route is changed to end in Wilmington instead of Myrtle Beach.

 You know that isn't happening, keep dreaming.  :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin: :spin:

If nothing happens at the federal level regarding modifying the HPC #5 legislation to divert I-74 to Wilmington, what will probably happen is that US 74/76 from Bolton to at least I-140 will be submitted for an x74 3di, and plans for that facility will be prioritized over the authorized segment down NC 211.  One way or another NC isn't going to miss the chance to serve its premier coastal city (in a similar fashion to the I-69/369 continuum in TX). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 30, 2018, 03:22:52 PM
The NCDOT estimates that it will be another two weeks before the NC 108 to I-26 west ramp at Exit 67 and the US 74 west to NC 108 ramp (Exit 161) are re-opened in Columbus. The ramps have been closed since July, except for two weeks in September while the World Equestrian Games were held at the nearby Tryon International Equestrian Center. Exit 66 on I-26 west to US 74 east opened in August. The new ramp from US 74 west to I-26 east will not be finished until spring 2019. An additional $10.4 million has been requested from the Board of Transportation (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Archive/201811_Project_List.pdf) for the project.

Ramp to I-26 West needs 2 more weeks - The Tryon Daily Bulletin (https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2018/11/30/ramp-to-i-26-west-needs-2-more-weeks/)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4856/46070422652_d8852aa12e_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4856/46070422652_c09a57449a_o.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 02, 2018, 08:24:19 PM
Is there an easy way to find the let date of projects or otherwise search through https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/ for specific projects? Google site searching only searches PDF contents and not the directories.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 03, 2018, 06:04:00 PM
Is there an easy way to find the let date of projects or otherwise search through https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/ for specific projects? Google site searching only searches PDF contents and not the directories.

I'm not aware of a way to search through their xfer site. It might be possible through a FTP client (if it works that way).

The 12-month and 36-month tentative letting lists includes the let dates and descriptions for upcoming projects. This is updated monthly for central-let and design-build projects. I've never had luck finding plans for design-build projects online, since the whole point of design-build is that the project is let before designs are finalized.

NCDOT Letting Lists (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Pages/12month.aspx)

You can also try searching through the bidding and letting documents here (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/Forms/AllItems.aspx) to find awarded projects.

You can use the Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/default.aspx) to find the let dates of projects currently under construction. This is searchable by county, project number, or contract number.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4869/31228098897_d4fc967e3c_z.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 03, 2018, 07:40:35 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on December 13 to discuss building a new interchange on I-40 at Blue Ridge Road in Black Mountain.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-blue-ridge-road-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-blue-ridge-road-meeting.aspx)

––-

Also, renovations to the Welcome Center on I-40 in Haywood County will be underway starting next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-30-i-40-welcome-center-renovation.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-30-i-40-welcome-center-renovation.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 03, 2018, 09:35:22 PM
I was poking around in the sign plans for the Military Cutoff Road extension. While the project site doesn't say anything about the rerouted US 17 and shows it on 140 on all the main project maps, the actual signs do of course have US 17 on its new alignment. US 17 won't be routed onto the Military Cutoff Road extension; instead, it will be some TBD state route. (The plans show a blank NC shield.) However, it includes the future signs for when the Hampstead Bypass is built, and while they only show a dashed square with a "By-Pass" banner in place of the shield, it's obvious that the Bypass and the Military Cutoff Road extension will become US 17 Bypass.

They also don't seem to be in a hurry to make the new eastern NC 140 into an extension of I-140. All the new signs have NC 140 shields with no mention of an overlay, though the same is true for NC 295...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 04, 2018, 02:43:43 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-old-manns-harbor-bridge-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-old-manns-harbor-bridge-closure.aspx)

Quote
MANNS HARBOR - The N.C. Department of Transportation will close the William B. Umstead Bridge, locally known as the Old Manns Harbor Bridge, between 8 a.m. on Monday, Dec. 10 and 5 p.m. on Friday, Dec. 14.

During the closure, workers will be making concrete and metal repairs in order to replace an expansion joint at the eastern end of the bridge. The joint was one of two bridge joint replacements scheduled for September, but work on the second one was postponed to accommodate the Outer Banks Triathlon and Cycle Race.

While the bridge is closed, motorists will still be able to cross Croatan Sound between Roanoke Island and the Dare County mainland via the Virginia Dare Memorial Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 05, 2018, 09:20:37 AM
A meeting is being held on December 13 in Rocky Mount to discuss several proposed projects in the area, including building a new interchange on I-95 with Sunset Avenue.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-05-nash-county-meeting-for-road-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-05-nash-county-meeting-for-road-improvements.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 05, 2018, 04:14:02 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to build the next section of NC-540 between US-401 and I-40.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-contract-awarded-complete-540.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-contract-awarded-complete-540.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2018, 06:28:43 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to build the next section of NC-540 between US-401 and I-40.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-contract-awarded-complete-540.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-contract-awarded-complete-540.aspx)
First of three contracts, covering the east end of the project (US 401 to I-40/US 70). Completion date is 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2018, 06:36:25 PM
There will be a public meeting in Asheville on December 4 concerning the "completed preliminary designs for the preferred alternative for the I-26 Connector Project (I-2513)" in Asheville. Regular visitors to the forum will know that this project involves a major upgrade to the western arc of I-26/240 and the construction of a giant interchange connecting that segment to I-26 north. The project has been through NIMBY hell for years, and now we're getting close to a resolution. I think. NCDOT has booked the Grand Ballroom of the Renaissance Hotel for this meeting, so they're expecting a crowd.

Meeting announcement here: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Public_Notice.pdf

The "key map" is a good overview of the project: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-2513_Key_Map.pdf
Here is press coverage of the public hearing yesterday on the I-26 Connector:

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2018/12/05/fix-26-connector-plans-scrap-them-asheville-residents-debate/2214770002/

No major surprises. 450 people showed up. Quite a few of then want to junk the whole thing; that's been true from the beginning. Others had many suggestions for improvement. NCDOT has already made big changes in this project based on the public uproar. Final plans will be released next year with a construction start in 2020. Price tag: $950M.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2018, 06:49:33 PM
They should base the project on what improves traffic conditions, not on what pacifies NIMBYists.

Quote
"The way to deal with traffic is to not make Asheville more car friendly."
Sorry Roberta Wall, but nothing could be more opposite from the truth.

Quote
"Some said DOT should not be taking such a big step to cater to automobile travel in an era of global warming or that the connector runs counter to a trend whereby other cities are covering up or closing freeways to create parks or for other uses."
And I say it's the effort to do just that which is contributing to global warming.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2018, 06:53:21 PM
A meeting is being held on December 13 in Rocky Mount to discuss several proposed projects in the area, including building a new interchange on I-95 with Sunset Avenue.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-05-nash-county-meeting-for-road-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-05-nash-county-meeting-for-road-improvements.aspx)
I figured if they were going to do something like this, they'd have to extend the C-D roads further south. Otherwise, this would be a project I'd oppose.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2018, 05:18:18 AM
A contract was awarded for the next phase of the I-40/I-77 interchange improvement project. Construction to start next year and should be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on December 06, 2018, 05:41:19 AM
I don't know what to make of that.  By then, Dana and I might be living elsewhere, but I work in Statesville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on December 06, 2018, 09:08:14 AM
A contract was awarded for the next phase of the I-40/I-77 interchange improvement project. Construction to start next year and should be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx)


It just might finish before I-77 toll lanes!! lol
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2018, 09:22:08 AM
The new high-rise bridge in Surf City is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-surf-city-bridge-ahead-schedule.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-surf-city-bridge-ahead-schedule.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on December 06, 2018, 09:22:28 AM
A contract was awarded for the next phase of the I-40/I-77 interchange improvement project. Construction to start next year and should be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx)


It just might finish before I-77 toll lanes!! lol

If we are still making trips to Florida (depends on where daughter-in-law gets a job when she finishes her residency and fellowship), it looks like I-40 and NC 16 will be the preferred route to avoid yet another construction fiasco on I-77.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on December 06, 2018, 09:35:38 AM
The new high-rise bridge in Surf City is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-surf-city-bridge-ahead-schedule.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-04-surf-city-bridge-ahead-schedule.aspx)


Over Thanksgiving, I was able to go over the swing bridge one more time but at the time had no idea the new bridge would be finished so quickly. But just lookin at it I was impressed and figured it wasn't far off from opening.

Like the Sunset Beach bridge, it was time to retire. And Sunset's was one lane if anyone remembers! LMAO
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 06, 2018, 11:38:16 AM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.

I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 06, 2018, 11:50:14 AM
Question: Why is NC so strict with the 70 MPH Speed Limit?  I feel it's almost as bad as my old home state of Maryland!!  I was driving on I-73 in NW Guilford County yesterday (from PTI to US 220) and it is 100% rural, yet it's only 65 MPH.  The Monroe Bypass is 65 MPH yet it's also VERY rural.

I will say that the I-140 bypass around Wilmington used to be 65 MPH, but then around 2012 it was increased to 70 MPH.  So maybe NC has a habit of setting freeways at 65 and then 5-10 years later, set them at 70 MPH?

Also, most of I-40 from Asheville to Durham is also 65, yet I think 70 would be okay, except for the short urban areas of Statesville, W/S & Greensboro.

Should they really sign these roads at 65 MPH? or is this just collusion between NCDOT and local Sheriff's Depts to get more revenue?, if most people drive 80+ we can get more $ for 80 in a 65 than we would if they were only going 80 in a 70 MPH zone.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 06, 2018, 11:56:22 AM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.
I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.

"Movable bridges are classified by the way they are raised, turned, or lifted.  All of North Carolina's surviving examples are swing spans or bascules, two of the most common types.   North Carolina's Historic Bridge Inventory includes eleven movable bridges with dates of construction from 1928 to 1960."

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/historic-bridges/Pages/movable-bridges.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PiedmontHwys on December 06, 2018, 01:17:53 PM
A contract was awarded for the next phase of the I-40/I-77 interchange improvement project. Construction to start next year and should be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-03-i-40-i-77-contract-award.aspx)

About time!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 06, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
Question: Why is NC so strict with the 70 MPH Speed Limit?  I feel it's almost as bad as my old home state of Maryland!!  I was driving on I-73 in NW Guilford County yesterday (from PTI to US 220) and it is 100% rural, yet it's only 65 MPH.  The Monroe Bypass is 65 MPH yet it's also VERY rural.

I will say that the I-140 bypass around Wilmington used to be 65 MPH, but then around 2012 it was increased to 70 MPH.  So maybe NC has a habit of setting freeways at 65 and then 5-10 years later, set them at 70 MPH?

Also, most of I-40 from Asheville to Durham is also 65, yet I think 70 would be okay, except for the short urban areas of Statesville, W/S & Greensboro.

Should they really sign these roads at 65 MPH? or is this just collusion between NCDOT and local Sheriff's Depts to get more revenue?, if most people drive 80+ we can get more $ for 80 in a 65 than we would if they were only going 80 in a 70 MPH zone.

I'd say NC is doing pretty good with 70 mph sections of freeway. I made a quick map using NCDOT's data (don't immediately blame me if something isn't showing up correctly).

You'll never see 70 on I-40 up the mountain to Asheville, and you won't see it from Morganton to Statesville without major upgrades. Way too many out-dated interchanges and bridges without shoulders through there.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4887/45296413155_4071de4bf7_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4887/45296413155_b60d55aed0_o.png)

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 06, 2018, 06:31:02 PM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.

I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.
There's no drawbridge at Manteo, but there is a still a drawbridge on US 64 at the Alligator River/Intracoastal waterway west of Manteo.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2018, 07:39:23 PM
Update on the I-40 widening project in Wake & Johnston counties.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-06-i-40-widening-wake-johnston.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-06-i-40-widening-wake-johnston.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 06, 2018, 08:20:42 PM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.

I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.
There's no drawbridge at Manteo, but there is a still a drawbridge on US 64 at the Alligator River/Intracoastal waterway west of Manteo.

There are also still drawbridges at New Bern, Washington, Elizabeth City, Hertford, and South Mills.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on December 07, 2018, 10:48:11 AM
Question: Why is NC so strict with the 70 MPH Speed Limit?  I feel it's almost as bad as my old home state of Maryland!!  I was driving on I-73 in NW Guilford County yesterday (from PTI to US 220) and it is 100% rural, yet it's only 65 MPH.  The Monroe Bypass is 65 MPH yet it's also VERY rural.

I will say that the I-140 bypass around Wilmington used to be 65 MPH, but then around 2012 it was increased to 70 MPH.  So maybe NC has a habit of setting freeways at 65 and then 5-10 years later, set them at 70 MPH?

Also, most of I-40 from Asheville to Durham is also 65, yet I think 70 would be okay, except for the short urban areas of Statesville, W/S & Greensboro.

Should they really sign these roads at 65 MPH? or is this just collusion between NCDOT and local Sheriff's Depts to get more revenue?, if most people drive 80+ we can get more $ for 80 in a 65 than we would if they were only going 80 in a 70 MPH zone.

I'd say NC is doing pretty good with 70 mph sections of freeway. I made a quick map using NCDOT's data (don't immediately blame me if something isn't showing up correctly).

You'll never see 70 on I-40 up the mountain to Asheville, and you won't see it from Morganton to Statesville without major upgrades. Way too many out-dated interchanges and bridges without shoulders through there.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4887/45296413155_4071de4bf7_b.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4887/45296413155_b60d55aed0_o.png)
I’m kind of amazed that 485 is 70 all the way around. I thought for sure they would leave the part around Ballantyne and Pineville 65.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dustin DeWinn on December 07, 2018, 08:36:55 PM
Is this the part that extends on Exit 26A/B? I-40; I-87?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7701475,-78.5085362,1406m/data=!3m1!1e3?shorturl=1
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 07, 2018, 09:01:37 PM
Is this the part that extends on Exit 26A/B? I-40; I-87?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7701475,-78.5085362,1406m/data=!3m1!1e3?shorturl=1

If you're referring to 540, that section is still a ways off. The current estimate is 2027. The section that was just awarded is the middle section from US 401 to I-40. The section from NC 55 (not shown, but just east of US 1) to 401 will be let next year.

(https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/PublishingImages/complete-540.png) (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/complete-540/Pages/default.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 07, 2018, 09:15:09 PM
I’m kind of amazed that 485 is 70 all the way around. I thought for sure they would leave the part around Ballantyne and Pineville 65.

I am too, and just confirmed it in Google Street View. I was surprised when they increased the speed limit on the northern section of 540. I guess traffic volume and congestion isn't one of their variables?

I could see US 321 between Gastonia and Hickory and US 421 from somewhere in Wilkes County to I-40 at Winston being raised to 70. Now that the rehabilitation project on I-85 is almost complete, they may raise it to 70 all the way to Virginia. Maybe continue down from China Grove to Concord Mills once that widening is complete. Once I-95 is improved south of 40 (can't remember the section limits), it will probably go up as well.

Boogity, boogity, boogity!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on December 09, 2018, 05:18:57 PM
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/09/Grant-to-pay-replacement-bridge-costs.html
Quote
Eleven bridges in the Twin Counties will be replaced thanks to a $23 million federal transportation grant to fix dozens of bridges in rural communities in 17 of the state's most economically distressed counties.

Three bridges in Nash and eight in Edgecombe will replaced under the U.S. Department of Transportation BUILD grant. The overall cost of the replacements is projected at $119 million, with the State Highway Bridge Fund paying for 58 of the structures and the BUILD grant covering the cost of replacing 19 weight-restricted bridges that could not be replaced using state funds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 10, 2018, 06:23:32 AM
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/09/Grant-to-pay-replacement-bridge-costs.html
Quote
Eleven bridges in the Twin Counties will be replaced thanks to a $23 million federal transportation grant to fix dozens of bridges in rural communities in 17 of the state's most economically distressed counties.

Three bridges in Nash and eight in Edgecombe will replaced under the U.S. Department of Transportation BUILD grant. The overall cost of the replacements is projected at $119 million, with the State Highway Bridge Fund paying for 58 of the structures and the BUILD grant covering the cost of replacing 19 weight-restricted bridges that could not be replaced using state funds.

Here’s NCDOT’s press release regarding the BUILD grant. The press release also contains a link to a list of all 77 bridges slated for replacement.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-06-build-bridge-grant.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-06-build-bridge-grant.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 17, 2018, 09:02:43 PM
I-85 Business removed from Greensboro, north end truncated to the I-85/85 Bus split south of Exit 118, effective 10/31/18 - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31.pdf

The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

NC 47 has been rerouted slightly to cut west from Hargrave Rd over Hargrave Ln to I-285.  The old Hargrave Rd piece north to I-285 NB will be considered a ramp.  Effective 12/11/18 - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_12_11.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 17, 2018, 09:12:45 PM
The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

Was this something that people were expecting to happen? It seems silly if the southern section is to remain Business 85, since they'd probably sign "To Business 85" at the southern end of I-285 anyway.

Also, when are the Business 85 shields expected to be removed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on December 17, 2018, 11:49:29 PM
The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

Was this something that people were expecting to happen? It seems silly if the southern section is to remain Business 85, since they'd probably sign "To Business 85" at the southern end of I-285 anyway.

Also, when are the Business 85 shields expected to be removed?

I imagine pretty soon.  The signage plans on I-40 seem to be using the existing signs with the Bus 85 shield removed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on December 18, 2018, 12:18:33 AM
Question: Why is NC so strict with the 70 MPH Speed Limit?  I feel it's almost as bad as my old home state of Maryland!!  I was driving on I-73 in NW Guilford County yesterday (from PTI to US 220) and it is 100% rural, yet it's only 65 MPH.  The Monroe Bypass is 65 MPH yet it's also VERY rural.

I will say that the I-140 bypass around Wilmington used to be 65 MPH, but then around 2012 it was increased to 70 MPH.  So maybe NC has a habit of setting freeways at 65 and then 5-10 years later, set them at 70 MPH?

Also, most of I-40 from Asheville to Durham is also 65, yet I think 70 would be okay, except for the short urban areas of Statesville, W/S & Greensboro.

Should they really sign these roads at 65 MPH? or is this just collusion between NCDOT and local Sheriff's Depts to get more revenue?, if most people drive 80+ we can get more $ for 80 in a 65 than we would if they were only going 80 in a 70 MPH zone.





I am not sure why some areas are only 65 wile others are 70. I would guess that NCDOT doesn't feel like the roads with 65 mph speed limits are up to standard.
It certainly isn't because of the highlighted part above. Anything more than 15 mph over the limit or anything over 80 MPH are both Class 3 Misdemeanor offenses rather than simple traffic infractions and carry the same fines/penalties {NCGS 20-141(j1)} 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 12:30:18 AM
Here in PA, the Turnpike is 70 mph almost in its entirety. By that standard, almost every suburban and rural freeway in NC should be 70 or higher.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: seicer on December 18, 2018, 12:33:26 AM
Yeah, but the vast majority of freeways in Pennsylvania are 65 MPH and frustratingly 55 MPH just because you happen to be near any populated area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 18, 2018, 06:15:20 AM
The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

Was this something that people were expecting to happen? It seems silly if the southern section is to remain Business 85, since they'd probably sign "To Business 85" at the southern end of I-285 anyway.


Upthread it was noted that 285 shields were replacing 85 Bus shields so I made it a point to document it doesn't mean 85 Bus is being removed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 18, 2018, 06:40:54 AM
Here in PA, the Turnpike is 70 mph almost in its entirety. By that standard, almost every suburban and rural freeway in NC should be 70 or higher.

The last thing needed is to utilize the PA Turnpike as any kind of standard of how freeways should be designed and operated.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 10:39:36 AM
Here in PA, the Turnpike is 70 mph almost in its entirety. By that standard, almost every suburban and rural freeway in NC should be 70 or higher.

The last thing needed is to utilize the PA Turnpike as any kind of standard of how freeways should be designed and operated.

My point is that the majority of the PA Turnpike can easily be safely driven at 80 mph. Traffic flow around the Philadelphia area (though this part is straighter) can exceed 85 at times. I'm not saying the Turnpike is a model of good standards or that I-40 and Business 85 US 29/70 through Greensboro should be posted 70. :P
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 18, 2018, 10:43:05 AM
Here in PA, the Turnpike is 70 mph almost in its entirety. By that standard, almost every suburban and rural freeway in NC should be 70 or higher.
The last thing needed is to utilize the PA Turnpike as any kind of standard of how freeways should be designed and operated.
My point is that the majority of the PA Turnpike can easily be safely driven at 80 mph. Traffic flow around the Philadelphia area (though this part is straighter) can exceed 85 at times. I'm not saying the Turnpike is a model of good standards or that I-40 and Business 85 US 29/70 through Greensboro should be posted 70. :P

Speedaholics make all kinds of claims about how fast they can drive safely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 18, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

Was this something that people were expecting to happen? It seems silly if the southern section is to remain Business 85, since they'd probably sign "To Business 85" at the southern end of I-285 anyway.

Also, when are the Business 85 shields expected to be removed?

The Interstate Business routes have been downgraded for some time now. Since I-85 was widen between Salisbury and Lexington, they purposely kept I-85 Business off the overhead signs and gave it one measly side sign saying it's also there. With I-40 Business being phased out in two years and now the north section of I-85 Business being removed, it is only a matter of time before the rest of I-85 Business is removed and maybe even remove I-95 Business... thus eliminating them all.

I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 18, 2018, 12:16:53 PM
The Interstate Business routes have been downgraded for some time now. Since I-85 was widen between Salisbury and Lexington, they purposely kept I-85 Business off the overhead signs and gave it one measly side sign saying it's also there. With I-40 Business being phased out in two years and now the north section of I-85 Business being removed, it is only a matter of time before the rest of I-85 Business is removed and maybe even remove I-95 Business... thus eliminating them all.

That would be fine with me.  Nowadays I don't really see the need for Interstate Business Routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on December 18, 2018, 12:34:11 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on December 18, 2018, 01:14:36 PM
The document to assign I-285 is from 2/1/18 and does NOT mention the truncation of I-85 Business on its overlap - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_02_01.pdf

Was this something that people were expecting to happen? It seems silly if the southern section is to remain Business 85, since they'd probably sign "To Business 85" at the southern end of I-285 anyway.

Also, when are the Business 85 shields expected to be removed?

The Interstate Business routes have been downgraded for some time now. Since I-85 was widen between Salisbury and Lexington, they purposely kept I-85 Business off the overhead signs and gave it one measly side sign saying it's also there. With I-40 Business being phased out in two years and now the north section of I-85 Business being removed, it is only a matter of time before the rest of I-85 Business is removed and maybe even remove I-95 Business... thus eliminating them all.

I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
US 29 if I had to guess since it already has exit numbers between Greensboro and Danville. I realize 70 does as well but you don’t see them until you get to Durham.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 18, 2018, 05:08:39 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 18, 2018, 05:14:22 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.

If NCDOT operates like PennDOT in this regard, it will be US 29. Is 29 used as the primary route on the expressway between I-40 and Wendover Avenue?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 18, 2018, 05:45:58 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.

If NCDOT operates like PennDOT in this regard, it will be US 29. Is 29 used as the primary route on the expressway between I-40 and Wendover Avenue?

That stretch of road needs a signage update, because currently there is no identified primary route (i.e. no mile markers/exit numbers).  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 18, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.

US 29 will be the priority, so the exit numbers will follow US 29's mileage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 18, 2018, 09:44:28 PM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.
US 29 will be the priority, so the exit numbers will follow US 29's mileage.
Based on the US 29 mileage listed in Wikipedia, these could be the new exit numbers, south to north:
I-85/I-73/US 421 North (SB)        123
Holden Road                                124
US 220                                       125A/B
Rehobeth Ch Rd/Vandalia Rd        125C

US 29 currently has no exit numbers from I-40 to I-785 (135) and then beyond Hicone Rd (136) to Bus. 29 in Reidsville (149).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on December 19, 2018, 07:11:56 AM
I suspect signage will change in the coming months. The real question is which US Highway, US 29 or US 70, will become the mainline for the freeway stretch between I-85 and I-40 in Greensboro.
Why would either be moved off the mainline?

You misunderstood, which of the US Highways will be used for mile markers and exits. You see this all over when two or more routes on the same road, only one gets to be priority.
US 29 will be the priority, so the exit numbers will follow US 29's mileage.
Based on the US 29 mileage listed in Wikipedia, these could be the new exit numbers, south to north:
I-85/I-73/US 421 North (SB)        123
Holden Road                                124
US 220                                       125A/B
Rehobeth Ch Rd/Vandalia Rd        125C

US 29 currently has no exit numbers from I-40 to I-785 (135) and then beyond Hicone Rd (136) to Bus. 29 in Reidsville (149).
They’d only be 3 off from the original numbers


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2018, 04:01:17 PM
Toll rate increase for the Triangle Expressway effective January 1.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-20-triex-toll-rate-increase.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-12-20-triex-toll-rate-increase.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 27, 2018, 10:01:12 PM
PLEASE JOIN ME IN CONTACTING NCDOT REGARDING THESE TWO ISSUES:

1) Once excellent quality standards are in decline. Raleigh's Fortify project has sloppy overhead signs that are already starting to sag (cantilevered Lake Wheeler overhead that yellow "exit only" switches border color making it look patched.) I know this is the federal standard but matching white border looks better and is accepted.

The Beltline overheads are faded and need replacing but if they're going to be sloppy, I'd rather keep the faded perfect-quality ones.


2) Request more signal upgrades using mast-arm poles. NCDOT manages most signals even in cities. They defended one mast-arm replacement in Raleigh's five-points neighborhood so hard, that it's apparent that mast-arm poles are seen as an indulgent use of funds.


Meanwhile every other state is aggressively installing mast-arm poles, and Raleigh will soon be sagging-wire signal capital of the world. They look horrible and sloppy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 27, 2018, 11:04:41 PM
PLEASE JOIN ME IN CONTACTING NCDOT REGARDING THESE TWO ISSUES:

1) Once excellent quality standards are in decline. Raleigh's Fortify project has sloppy overhead signs that are already starting to sag (cantilevered Lake Wheeler overhead that yellow "exit only" switches border color making it look patched.) I know this is the federal standard but matching white border looks better and is accepted.

The Beltline overheads are faded and need replacing but if they're going to be sloppy, I'd rather keep the faded perfect-quality ones.


2) Request more signal upgrades using mast-arm poles. NCDOT manages most signals even in cities. They defended one mast-arm replacement in Raleigh's five-points neighborhood so hard, that it's apparent that mast-arm poles are seen as an indulgent use of funds.


Meanwhile every other state is aggressively installing mast-arm poles, and Raleigh will soon be sagging-wire signal capital of the world. They look horrible and sloppy.

The signs along the Fortify Project were, it seems, somewhat of an afterthought. Most were replaced in kind, even though some were outdated (such as the signage for South Saunders Street North which doesn't have references to US 70/US 401/NC 50 since the prior signs did not have them either). They also decided to put up signs for the I-440 exit eastbound without I-87 shields because they were designed prior to that designation, they are to be replaced again by next summer. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 28, 2018, 01:29:11 PM
According to this tidbit in the Rocky Mount Telegram, NCDOT is planning to rebuild the Gold Rock interchange (Exit 145) on I-95.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/28/Local-man-keeps-state-board-seat.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/28/Local-man-keeps-state-board-seat.html)

Quote
The Twin Counties is set to receive more than $300 million in projects, including the recently opened Sunset Avenue Bridge; widening of Wesleyan Boulevard in front of the mall; four lane expansion from Sunset Avenue into Nashville, which is a combination of three projects; work to make U.S. 64 meet Interstate 87 standards; widening Red Oak Road to four lanes; Widening of N.C. 4 to get ready for the big trucks that will be used by the CSX terminal; a complete redo of the entire Gold Rock interchange on I-95; and a double loop to Sunset Avenue and Interstate 95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 29, 2018, 09:37:36 PM
PLEASE JOIN ME IN CONTACTING NCDOT REGARDING THESE TWO ISSUES:

1) Once excellent quality standards are in decline. Raleigh's Fortify project has sloppy overhead signs that are already starting to sag (cantilevered Lake Wheeler overhead that yellow "exit only" switches border color making it look patched.) I know this is the federal standard but matching white border looks better and is accepted.

The Beltline overheads are faded and need replacing but if they're going to be sloppy, I'd rather keep the faded perfect-quality ones.


2) Request more signal upgrades using mast-arm poles. NCDOT manages most signals even in cities. They defended one mast-arm replacement in Raleigh's five-points neighborhood so hard, that it's apparent that mast-arm poles are seen as an indulgent use of funds.


Meanwhile every other state is aggressively installing mast-arm poles, and Raleigh will soon be sagging-wire signal capital of the world. They look horrible and sloppy.

The signs along the Fortify Project were, it seems, somewhat of an afterthought. Most were replaced in kind, even though some were outdated (such as the signage for South Saunders Street North which doesn't have references to US 70/US 401/NC 50 since the prior signs did not have them either). They also decided to put up signs for the I-440 exit eastbound without I-87 shields because they were designed prior to that designation, they are to be replaced again by next summer. 

Please contact them on their website.

I feel like some transplants are in charge of NCDOT now, and they don't prioritize high standards which NC has been known for.

They haven't replied to my multi-issue email from 3 months ago, formerly I'd get prompt reply.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 29, 2018, 09:44:06 PM
Is there a way to find out if a contract is in default?  It's seems the progress for paving I 40 from exit 119 to exit 94 has gone horribly off schedule.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 29, 2018, 10:09:55 PM
Is there a way to find out if a contract is in default?  It's seems the progress for paving I 40 from exit 119 to exit 94 has gone horribly off schedule.
If you're talking about Contract No. 204056, paving along I-40 from MM 32.95 to MM 119.13, the NCDOT Construction Progress Report lists it as behind its projected completion rate (39% vs. 48% as of Dec. 15) and that the project currently has a cost overrun of 1.8%. The completion date has been changed from July 1 to Nov. 15, 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 29, 2018, 10:23:26 PM
Strange because they ground downtown the 1950's slabs back in June, but paving has been spotty since with only the westbound lanes from 119 to 105 completed.  New logo signage and the new sheilded mileposts are up, but I was hoping for new BGS's as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 30, 2018, 03:02:52 PM
Strange because they ground downtown the 1950's slabs back in June, but paving has been spotty since with only the westbound lanes from 119 to 105 completed.  New logo signage and the new sheilded mileposts are up, but I was hoping for new BGS's as well.

I'm sure having one of the rainiest years on record hasn't helped their schedule.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 31, 2018, 10:57:41 PM
Very expensive tolls for a freeway that has no river bridges, 20 cents per mile.  Tolls will steadily increase and continue until at least 2051.  Plus there are plans to more than double the length of this tolled freeway, if the southeastern extension is built.   :-(

Excerpts:

Tolls are rising an average of 3.5 percent. Drivers with an NC Quick Pass will pay 12 cents more, or $3.37, to drive the entire 17.4-mile length of the Triangle Expressway between N.C. 147 at Interstate 40 in Research Triangle Park and the N.C. 55 Bypass between Apex and Holly Springs.

Drivers without a pass, who receive a bill in the mail, will pay $5.17, or 20 cents more, to make that trip.

Triangle Expressway tolls inch up every year on Jan. 1.  The N.C. Turnpike Authority Board has set annual toll rate hikes through 2051 to pay off the bonds sold to finance the $1 billion highway.  After three years at 5 percent, the annual rate hike declined to 3.5 percent in 2017 and will go down to 3 percent in 2022 and 2 percent or less from 2036 through 2051.


New Year’s Day brings higher tolls on the Triangle Expressway in Wake County
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article223769275.html#storylink=cpy
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 02, 2019, 06:54:19 PM
NCDOT has announced that the reconstruction of the I-440/US 70/NC 50 interchange at Crabtree Valley in Raleigh is being delayed, with a construction start date now scheduled for 2025 instead of (perhaps) 2020. Cost ($230M is the current estimate) is cited as the reason, but NCDOT is also facing NIMBY problems on this project (everyone in Raleigh is an expert on what to do with this interchange). The delay gives designers more time to find a middle-of-the-road solution that provides as much improvement as possible with a manageable amount of public opposition AND it also guarantees that traffic will get much worse and push up public support for a solution. Here's the press account:
https://www.wral.com/nc-dot-delays-glenwood-avenue-upgrade/18099678/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 05, 2019, 01:55:18 PM
According to this tidbit in the Rocky Mount Telegram, NCDOT is planning to rebuild the Gold Rock interchange (Exit 145) on I-95.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/28/Local-man-keeps-state-board-seat.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2018/12/28/Local-man-keeps-state-board-seat.html)

I vaguely remember talk about this a couple of years ago. I don't remember what they were supposed to replace it with, but I wasn't such a big fan of it.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 07, 2019, 12:41:38 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-07-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-lane-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-07-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-lane-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 08, 2019, 11:35:26 AM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen a 2.7-mile stretch of NC-172 in Onslow County between NC-210 and Camp Lejeune. Scheduled completion is May 2021.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-08-onslow-county-road-widening-project-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-08-onslow-county-road-widening-project-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 10, 2019, 06:25:13 PM
NCDOT has released its Draft 2020-2029 STIP document. I quickly perused it for updated construction schedules for Interstate projects. Some of the highlights:
I-73/I-74

R-3421 I-73/74 Rockingham Bypass. Construction from late 2019 to 2023, partly financed by Build NC Bonds to be paid back by 2034, US 1 interchange improvements (I-5979) at US 74 Construction 2022

I-6055 I-74 Upgrade in Richmond and Scotland County, ROW 2025/26 Construction in 2029

I-785
R-5889 Upgrade US 29 to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 29 Bypass in Reidsville, Construction 2027

I-87
R-5869 Upgrade US 17 intersections to interchanges in Perquimans County, Construction 2028
I-6041 and 6046 US 64 Pavement Rehabilitation I-95 to NC 33 in Edgecombe and Nash County, Construction 2020
I-6042 US 64 Pavement Rehabilitation NC 33 to Martin County Line, Construction 2022
U-6149 Upgrade US 64 to Interstate Standards from NC 58 to Thomas Rd overpass in Nash and Edgecombe Counties Construction After 2029

I-587
I-6032 US 264 Pavement Rehabilitation Greene County Construction 2019
I-6035 US 264 Pavement Rehabilitation Pitt County Construction 2019

I-42
I-6002 US 70 Pavement Rehabilitation in Craven and Jones County, Construction 2019
I-6004 US 70 Pavement Rehabilitation in Johnston County from Buffaloe Rd to Wayne County Line, Construction 2019
R-2553 US 70 Upgrade end of Goldsboro Bypass to New Bern Freeway Construction 2025-2028

I-795
U-3125 Extension Goldsboro to I-40 Country Club Rd (SR 1135)to S. Landfill Rd (SR 1129) Construction 2027 Goldsboro Area ROW 2028

The complete document is at: https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-highlights.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-highlights.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 10, 2019, 08:41:40 PM
This link will show changes from the last STIP to this draft STIP:  https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf

Highlights include:
Failure to fund conversion of US 17 to interstate standard from north of Elizabeth City to VA
Upgrade US 70 to freeway btw La Grange and Dover segments - one phase added and one delayed
Failure to fund NC 11 conversion to interstate from end of Greenville Byp to future NC 148 Kinston
UPgrade US 70 to freeway in a segment near the upcoming Havelock Byp
Upgrade US 13-258 to freeway btw NC 91 and US 258 split
Failed to fund US 74-76 interchange with NC 87
New Cape Fear Crossing btw US 17 and 421 (construction after 2029)
New Interchange at south end of Shalotte Byp
A segment for widening I-95 to 8 lanes btw Exit 56 and Exit 81 was placed in here to start construction in 2020
A segment for widening I-95 to 8 lanes btw Exit 22 and Exit 40 was scheduled for construction 3 years earlier to 2026
NC 540 extension from I-87 to I-40 delayed a yr
Widen I-87 to 6 lanes from Wendell Blvd to US 264
New interchange US 64 and NC 751
Convert US 74 to interstate btw NC 41 and US 76, construction 2029
PArt of the Wadesboro Freeway bypass added
Boone Southern Bypass Freeway added
Extending NC 73 to US 321
I-26 segments on new location in Asheville delayed 4-5 years
Corridor K (US 74) segments delayed 3 yrs


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 10, 2019, 08:44:22 PM
I-785
R-5889 Upgrade US 29 to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 29 Bypass in Reidsville, Construction 2027

Is the section around Reidsville and up to Virginia already Interstate standard? If so, does that make this the last project before I-785 is signed in its entirety?

New Cape Fear Crossing btw US 17 and 421 (construction after 2029)

Does the wording of the entry (US 17 to US 421/Independence Blvd intersection) imply the alternative that extends from the end of I-140? The only other alternative that goes to Independence Blvd is the one that ends at I-140 further north.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2019, 10:21:14 AM
I-785
R-5889 Upgrade US 29 to Interstate Standards from Hicone Road to US 29 Bypass in Reidsville, Construction 2027

Is the section around Reidsville and up to Virginia already Interstate standard? If so, does that make this the last project before I-785 is signed in its entirety?

Yes on both accounts. VA’s section of I-785 is a different story...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 11, 2019, 10:28:28 AM
This link will show changes from the last STIP to this draft STIP:  https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf

Highlights include:

Failure to fund NC 11 conversion to interstate from end of Greenville Byp to future NC 148 Kinston

I don’t think NCDOT was ever really interested in that anyway, so that comes as no surprise. That project was a proposal that was heavily pushed by Kinston and Greenville. However, over the last couple of years, there has been zero talk about it among locals and the two mayors that pushed for that project, BJ Murphy and Allen Thomas, are no longer in office. Their successors haven’t mentioned a peep about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 11, 2019, 12:10:08 PM
Still no funding for what will eventually be the last at-grade intersection on US 74 between I-26 and I-85 (R-4045).

Overall it seemed like there were a lot of delays included in the draft STIP. Perhaps the coffers aren't as full as NCDOT thought they were going to be....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on January 11, 2019, 01:47:29 PM
This link will show changes from the last STIP to this draft STIP:  https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf

Highlights include:

Failure to fund NC 11 conversion to interstate from end of Greenville Byp to future NC 148 Kinston

I don’t think NCDOT was ever really interested in that anyway, so that comes as no surprise. That project was a proposal that was heavily pushed by Kinston and Greenville. However, over the last couple of years, there has been zero talk about it among locals and the two mayors that pushed for that project, BJ Murphy and Allen Thomas, are no longer in office. Their successors haven’t mentioned a peep about it.

I honestly don’t see a need for NC 11 to be interstate quality between Greenville and Kinston. Since the speed limit was raised to 60 a few years back I’ve found it to be a pretty smooth ride for the most part except right as you approach Winterville coming from Kinston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 11, 2019, 04:44:25 PM
This link will show changes from the last STIP to this draft STIP:  https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf

Highlights include:
Failure to fund conversion of US 17 to interstate standard from north of Elizabeth City to VA
Upgrade US 70 to freeway btw La Grange and Dover segments - one phase added and one delayed
Failure to fund NC 11 conversion to interstate from end of Greenville Byp to future NC 148 Kinston
UPgrade US 70 to freeway in a segment near the upcoming Havelock Byp
Upgrade US 13-258 to freeway btw NC 91 and US 258 split
Failed to fund US 74-76 interchange with NC 87
New Cape Fear Crossing btw US 17 and 421 (construction after 2029)
New Interchange at south end of Shalotte Byp
A segment for widening I-95 to 8 lanes btw Exit 56 and Exit 81 was placed in here to start construction in 2020
A segment for widening I-95 to 8 lanes btw Exit 22 and Exit 40 was scheduled for construction 3 years earlier to 2026
NC 540 extension from I-87 to I-40 delayed a yr
Widen I-87 to 6 lanes from Wendell Blvd to US 264
New interchange US 64 and NC 751
Convert US 74 to interstate btw NC 41 and US 76, construction 2029
PArt of the Wadesboro Freeway bypass added
Boone Southern Bypass Freeway added
Extending NC 73 to US 321
I-26 segments on new location in Asheville delayed 4-5 years
Corridor K (US 74) segments delayed 3 yrs
Adding the US64 interchange at NC751 is a welcome change, but I can't understand how this would cost $67 million when the project to add interchanges at Laura Duncan, Lake Pine, and Edinburgh, and make a superstreet out of the rest of the corridor, and widen it to six lanes (U-5301), is projected at $117 million. Either the NC 751 interchange project (R-5887) has more scope beyond just that, or one of the estimates must be way off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 11, 2019, 05:19:19 PM
Still no funding for what will eventually be the last at-grade intersection on US 74 between I-26 and I-85 (R-4045).

Overall it seemed like there were a lot of delays included in the draft STIP. Perhaps the coffers aren't as full as NCDOT thought they were going to be....

They added numerous new projects entirely and are paying for those by delaying existing projects-essentially they are re-prioritizing stuff
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on January 12, 2019, 10:22:13 PM
I don't know if the subject has been brought up before, but why isn't there a north-to-south connecting road between US 301 and NC 48 in Pleasant Hill, NC?  Something like that would eliminate sharp turns between the two roads.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 13, 2019, 11:27:43 AM
Still no funding for what will eventually be the last at-grade intersection on US 74 between I-26 and I-85 (R-4045).

Overall it seemed like there were a lot of delays included in the draft STIP. Perhaps the coffers aren't as full as NCDOT thought they were going to be....

They added numerous new projects entirely and are paying for those by delaying existing projects-essentially they are re-prioritizing stuff

The majority of the new projects that were added are all scheduled for construction in the mid to late 20's. Many of the delays are for projects that were scheduled for construction in the early part of next decade and shouldn't be affected by those newly added projects.

Some notable delays:
Triangle
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 13, 2019, 11:55:47 AM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.
I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.

"Movable bridges are classified by the way they are raised, turned, or lifted.  All of North Carolina's surviving examples are swing spans or bascules, two of the most common types.   North Carolina's Historic Bridge Inventory includes eleven movable bridges with dates of construction from 1928 to 1960."

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/historic-bridges/Pages/movable-bridges.aspx

There's a drawbridge over the Port of Morehead City isn't there?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2019, 12:23:47 PM
Failure to fund conversion of US 17 to interstate standard from north of Elizabeth City to VA
I'm mixed on this one. I can understand why it wouldn't be funded for logical reasons, the existing corridor is a perfectly fine limited-access 4-lane highway, but at the same time with the big push for "I-87", I could see this project jumping around in the next few years.

My suggestions for them to get it funded would be to do spot improvements, such as building interchanges at select locations as different projects, similar to what's happening on US 74 outside Wilmington. The Morgan's Corner traffic signal on US-17 needs an interchange first, then the other few should get funded after that. At the end, then the shoulders can be widened and eventually signed as I-87 once the designation slowly creeps up from the south (or north if VA builds out their part).

I-87
R-5869 Upgrade US 17 intersections to interchanges in Perquimans County, Construction 2028
Again, I think they're trying to hard on this one. They need to do what they currently have funded, and that's the two interchanges. The rest of the project to upgrade the 4 mile stretch ($130 million??) needs to wait. My question is, do they plan on replacing the bridges? I remember reading those would be retained. What would cost $130 million after the interchanges are built on that limited-access stretch?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on January 13, 2019, 12:28:31 PM
Bridges have certainly come a long way in Eastern NC.  I think the only drawbridge left on the NC Coast is the one at Wrightsville Beach and I would not expect that to be replaced any time soon, if ever.
I know there is a drawbridge in Manteo, but I really don't count that one because thru traffic can take the 4 lane US 64 bridge around that.

"Movable bridges are classified by the way they are raised, turned, or lifted.  All of North Carolina's surviving examples are swing spans or bascules, two of the most common types.   North Carolina's Historic Bridge Inventory includes eleven movable bridges with dates of construction from 1928 to 1960."

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/historic-bridges/Pages/movable-bridges.aspx

When was the vertical lift bridge at Wilmington on US 76 over the Cape Fear River replaced?  Streetview. (https://goo.gl/maps/CGfgDhkCHDk)  Or is it just not in operation anymore?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on January 13, 2019, 06:58:23 PM
Overall it seemed like there were a lot of delays included in the draft STIP. Perhaps the coffers aren't as full as NCDOT thought they were going to be....

Tarriffs are driving the price of steel higher, there's uncertainty about the federal government's ability to distribute money, and the promised infastructure push from the '16 election has yet to come to anything. Compared to other states, NC's still in relatively good shape - just fighting the political headwinds everyone's fighting right now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 14, 2019, 06:33:34 PM
Overall it seemed like there were a lot of delays included in the draft STIP. Perhaps the coffers aren't as full as NCDOT thought they were going to be....

Tarriffs are driving the price of steel higher, there's uncertainty about the federal government's ability to distribute money, and the promised infastructure push from the '16 election has yet to come to anything. Compared to other states, NC's still in relatively good shape - just fighting the political headwinds everyone's fighting right now.

I found these snippets from the NCDOT/CAGC Joint Cooperative Committee meeting (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Specifications/Specification%20Resources/AGC%20JCC%202018%2011%2029.pdf) while searching for info on a project today:

Quote
Financial Update
Evan stated that the Department has been working over the past several years to deploy its cash and not bank it through acceleration of projects. Construction expenditures in the last completed fiscal year were up 25% and lettings up 39% from the previous year. The first quarter in the new SFY is showing an increase in construction spending of 19% and lettings up 351%. Maintenance spending and lettings also saw strong increases over the same period.

Cash over the last 16 months have decreased from just under $2.1 B in SFY 2016-2017 to $736 million at the end of October 2018 which is below the legislative threshold of $1B. NCDOT expects to stay below this threshold in the foreseeable future. With that, the Department is letting its first Build NC project in May 2019. Formal requests have been made to the Legislature as well as the Treasury Office.

The Secretary thanked everyone for responding to the advertisements and stated that the Department is within $100 million off of where we thought we would be 14 months ago and this is due to the hurricanes. The Secretary also mentioned that we have bonds up to $1 B if we need them next year. The plan is to hold the lettings between $2.5 B and $3 B per year. The industry appreciated this consistency in the lettings since they are investing in resources at that level.

[...]

Letting Projections
Mr. Davenport provided a handout outlining the proposed Letting Projection Chart and the Let Summary Projections for the next 12 months (December 2018 through November 2019). In the next 12 months, $3.9 billion in projects are currently scheduled for let including Design Build, TIP, TIP Bridge Replacement and Preservation, Division and Rail projects.

The following 12 months (December 2019 through November 2020) was also handed out. In that 12-month period $3.5 billion in lettings is shown. Industry asked if the Design Build projects could be spread out so over $1 billion will not be let in one month.

[...]

Tarriff Impacts
Mr. Hancock stated that they are continuing to monitor the prices of steel. Industry mentioned that they have seen a slight increase in the price, but more is the ability to get the material. Availability is slow and there is a need for more of a lead time. This is a little more challenging on design build contracts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 19, 2019, 10:10:12 PM
Has NCDOT ever confirmed the designation of the Greenville Southwest Bypass? Logically it would be either a rerouted NC 11 or a new NC 11 Bypass (which would follow 264 north around the city).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 19, 2019, 10:15:42 PM
Has NCDOT ever confirmed the designation of the Greenville Southwest Bypass? Logically it would be either a rerouted NC 11 or a new NC 11 Bypass (which would follow 264 north around the city).
I had wondered about that before, but I do not know. I tried hunting around for signage plans which usually indicate the shields used, basically what designation it'd be, but was not able to find anything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 19, 2019, 11:05:29 PM
NCDOT route changes page has a diagram that refers to the bypass as NC 11-903 bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2019, 01:15:20 AM
NCDOT route changes page has a diagram that refers to the bypass as NC 11-903 bypass.
If NC 903 made it on there, I would think also US-13 would, interesting.

Do you have a link?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 20, 2019, 09:37:38 AM
NCDOT route changes page has a diagram that refers to the bypass as NC 11-903 bypass.
If NC 903 made it on there, I would think also US-13 would, interesting.

Do you have a link?

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/R-2250%20Diagram.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/R-2250%20Diagram.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2019, 12:21:34 PM
NCDOT route changes page has a diagram that refers to the bypass as NC 11-903 bypass.
If NC 903 made it on there, I would think also US-13 would, interesting.

Do you have a link?

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/R-2250%20Diagram.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/R-2250%20Diagram.pdf)
Thank you. My question now is where do they want to send NC-903? The location it crosses the bypass on the southern end is grade-separated with no interchange access. Looks like they'd have to re-route it down NC-102 to meet back up with NC-903.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on January 21, 2019, 04:45:33 AM
Heads up to anyone travelling the US-17 corridor in the New Bern area the next 3 months:


https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html)


I really don't think it will be a big deal, they really hadn't made any changes to the old road except for 1 new shopping center (meaning one new stoplight) since the bypass had opened, and there isn't a lot of traffic at any given time of the day on the bypass during the winter anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2019, 01:11:41 PM
Heads up to anyone travelling the US-17 corridor in the New Bern area the next 3 months:


https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html)


I really don't think it will be a big deal, they really hadn't made any changes to the old road except for 1 new shopping center (meaning one new stoplight) since the bypass had opened, and there isn't a lot of traffic at any given time of the day on the bypass during the winter anyway.
I imagine after the closure is completed southbound US-17 bypass traffic will use the new ramps to exit onto existing 17 until the new bypass finally opens.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 21, 2019, 06:04:44 PM
The westbound signage for I-26 Exit 67 was finally updated to remove reference to US 74 east. I didn't travel eastbound to see if any signage was changed or added to reference Exit 66 (doubtful, since it wasn't included in the plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2017%20Highway%20Letting/09-19-17/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK%20I4729A%20C204039/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20I-4729A%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)). I guess US 74 east will have two exit numbers, depending on which direction you're going on I-26. I'm assuming there are no plans to add back the lane that was removed from US 74 east to make room for the ramp from I-26 west.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4819/45917186775_44eefb79b6_c.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4819/45917186775_2a9bb59269_k.jpg)

The ramp from US 74 west to I-26 east won't be finished until this spring. I-26 east lanes still needs to be shifted to make room for the on-ramp.

(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7922/45917189585_fd97b850a6_c.jpg) (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7922/45917189585_ac98440725_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 22, 2019, 02:38:46 AM
Heads up to anyone travelling the US-17 corridor in the New Bern area the next 3 months:


https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html)


I really don't think it will be a big deal, they really hadn't made any changes to the old road except for 1 new shopping center (meaning one new stoplight) since the bypass had opened, and there isn't a lot of traffic at any given time of the day on the bypass during the winter anyway.
I imagine after the closure is completed southbound US-17 bypass traffic will use the new ramps to exit onto existing 17 until the new bypass finally opens.

As I've surmised over in the I-87 (NC) thread, it seems like NCDOT is "piecemealing" the US 17 corridor into a 4-lane facility, potentially upgradeable to (dare I say it) Interstate standards in the future.  As they've presently got quite a bit on their plate, evidenced by the periodic shuffling of priorities (including let dates), it wouldn't be expected that they'd tackle US 17 in any more than "bite-size" projects, with high-cost segments such as a northern extension of the New Bern bypass over the Neuse River delayed until such time as funds can be freed up.   Right now it's a safe bet that they're not prepared to consider US 17 to be a comprehensive corridor (although it is within their state master plan) or to promote it as such for the time being -- although once the upgrades of the US 17 portion of the I-87 corridor are under way, it wouldn't be a surprise to see more and more "spot" development on US 17 south of Williamston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 22, 2019, 09:47:58 AM
I contacted NCDOT and was told that the Greenville Southwest Bypass will be signed exclusively as NC 11 Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 22, 2019, 10:04:25 AM
My response from NCDOT is that NC 903 will be rerouted, but not onto the bypass:

Quote from: NCDOT
The current plans show a reroute of the NC 903 designation. Starting south of the proposed project NC 903 will be rerouted east along the current SR 1113 to intersect with existing NC 11. NC 903 will then turn north along NC 11 to its current intersection in Winterville. The existing NC 903 between SR 1113 and NC 11 will become a secondary road.

SR 1113 is Old Snow Hill Rd, which meets NC 11 in Ayden.  With it being nearby and parallel to NC 102, I've asked if that adjacent leg of 102 will remain.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 22, 2019, 11:20:02 AM
My response from NCDOT is that NC 903 will be rerouted, but not onto the bypass:

Quote from: NCDOT
The current plans show a reroute of the NC 903 designation. Starting south of the proposed project NC 903 will be rerouted east along the current SR 1113 to intersect with existing NC 11. NC 903 will then turn north along NC 11 to its current intersection in Winterville. The existing NC 903 between SR 1113 and NC 11 will become a secondary road.

SR 1113 is Old Snow Hill Rd, which meets NC 11 in Ayden.  With it being nearby and parallel to NC 102, I've asked if that adjacent leg of 102 will remain.

Seems like an odd decision. Old Snow Hill Road still doesn't allow access to the bypass, runs parallel to NC 102 as you said (and that route does intersect the bypass), and is a much lower-traveled road than NC 102 or its current alignment. It will also end up turning off itself at the western end of Old Snow Hill Road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2019, 05:11:52 PM
As I've surmised over in the I-87 (NC) thread, it seems like NCDOT is "piecemealing" the US 17 corridor into a 4-lane facility, potentially upgradeable to (dare I say it) Interstate standards in the future.  As they've presently got quite a bit on their plate, evidenced by the periodic shuffling of priorities (including let dates), it wouldn't be expected that they'd tackle US 17 in any more than "bite-size" projects, with high-cost segments such as a northern extension of the New Bern bypass over the Neuse River delayed until such time as funds can be freed up.   Right now it's a safe bet that they're not prepared to consider US 17 to be a comprehensive corridor (although it is within their state master plan) or to promote it as such for the time being -- although once the upgrades of the US 17 portion of the I-87 corridor are under way, it wouldn't be a surprise to see more and more "spot" development on US 17 south of Williamston.
Agreed a US-17 interstate would be warranted if it was all built, it would get more traffic, especially if South Carolina played. There's a few things that go against this though - the 4-laning from Williamston to Washington is on existing-location with no frontage roads. A wide R/W, but the constant curves in the road will remain, it won't be straight. I've suggested before they build this project to the west on new location, limited-access, with future upgrades to interchanges when warranted. My concept would stretch from US-64 (I-87) freeway and tie into the Washington Bypass.

As for a New Bern Bypass, I hope it will happen eventually. The new location bypasses of Maysville and Pollocksville south of New Bern are being built to interstate standards, limited-access, interchanges or grade separations, no cross roads, etc. The stretch between the two bypasses is simply being dual-laned, though one side of it has essentially no buildings on it. They could construct a new northbound roadway, and convert the existing southbound roadway into a frontage road if a freeway is ever desired.

The real question is how to tackle Jacksonville. There's no good "direct" routing through the area. The only thing I could think is a 30 mile outer bypass, but that's pushing it. Or upgrade the arterial road on the north end to interstate standards by building frontage roads, urban interchanges, etc. That's happening on the southern end of the bypass.

There's also the Carolina Bays Parkway extension which will be built to interstate standards will extend from South Carolina to the Shallotte Bypass, but I think if they built another 15 miles to I-140, that would be a better solution. It would tie into to I-140 and the proposed Hampstead Bypass on the north end, and the Carolina Bays Parkway on the southern end, which would create about 100 miles of interstate-grade freeway between south of Myrtle Beach and north of Wilmington. Combined with I-40 to I-95, it would be an excellent connection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 22, 2019, 05:54:37 PM
On a related note, have they ever given a timeframe on the northern half of the New Bern bypass? It seems odd that they built half of it so recently, complete with a stub at US 70, and have sooner extended it in the other direction than from where the stub is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 23, 2019, 08:47:18 AM
Apparently, the Greenville Southwest Bypass is ahead of schedule and will open this fall, weather permitting. Original completion date was June 2020. Also in the article are updates on other Greenville-related road projects, most notably the 10th Street Connector.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/01/23/Preliminary-work-to-widen-Old-Tar.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/01/23/Preliminary-work-to-widen-Old-Tar.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 23, 2019, 12:44:11 PM
On a related note, have they ever given a timeframe on the northern half of the New Bern bypass? It seems odd that they built half of it so recently, complete with a stub at US 70, and have sooner extended it in the other direction than from where the stub is.

North of US 70/future I-42 wetlands flanking the Neuse River constitute a pretty formidable obstacle to roadway development -- although I understand there are plans to do so in the not-too-distant future in much the same configuration found along the existing section to the south.  Like I've said upthread, US 17 is NCDOT's proverbial "elephant" -- upgraded one small bite at a time (referring, of course to the cliche' query "how do you eat an elephant?")   But since the Neuse River crossing won't come cheap, it'll likely be worked in after or possibly in between major projects elsewhere in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 23, 2019, 02:58:13 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting tomorrow in Hillsborough to discuss widening I-40 to 6 lanes between I-85 and the Durham County line, as well as improving the NC-86 interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-23-orange-county-i-40-widening-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-23-orange-county-i-40-widening-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 23, 2019, 03:45:42 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting tomorrow in Hillsborough to discuss widening I-40 to 6 lanes between I-85 and the Durham County line, as well as improving the NC-86 interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-23-orange-county-i-40-widening-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-23-orange-county-i-40-widening-public-meeting.aspx)

Yeah!!!  More traffic for South Durham.  SMH.  This plus the possibility of NC 54 being redone could lead to a disaster, hopefully, they'll do these projects at separate times.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 23, 2019, 06:09:29 PM
Regarding US 17 in New Bern, who decided to build a cloverleaf interchange at US 70 next to a quarry with no place to go on the other side?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on January 24, 2019, 10:40:47 AM
As I've surmised over in the I-87 (NC) thread, it seems like NCDOT is "piecemealing" the US 17 corridor into a 4-lane facility, potentially upgradeable to (dare I say it) Interstate standards in the future.  As they've presently got quite a bit on their plate, evidenced by the periodic shuffling of priorities (including let dates), it wouldn't be expected that they'd tackle US 17 in any more than "bite-size" projects, with high-cost segments such as a northern extension of the New Bern bypass over the Neuse River delayed until such time as funds can be freed up.   Right now it's a safe bet that they're not prepared to consider US 17 to be a comprehensive corridor (although it is within their state master plan) or to promote it as such for the time being -- although once the upgrades of the US 17 portion of the I-87 corridor are under way, it wouldn't be a surprise to see more and more "spot" development on US 17 south of Williamston.
Agreed a US-17 interstate would be warranted if it was all built, it would get more traffic, especially if South Carolina played. There's a few things that go against this though - the 4-laning from Williamston to Washington is on existing-location with no frontage roads. A wide R/W, but the constant curves in the road will remain, it won't be straight. I've suggested before they build this project to the west on new location, limited-access, with future upgrades to interchanges when warranted. My concept would stretch from US-64 (I-87) freeway and tie into the Washington Bypass.

As for a New Bern Bypass, I hope it will happen eventually. The new location bypasses of Maysville and Pollocksville south of New Bern are being built to interstate standards, limited-access, interchanges or grade separations, no cross roads, etc. The stretch between the two bypasses is simply being dual-laned, though one side of it has essentially no buildings on it. They could construct a new northbound roadway, and convert the existing southbound roadway into a frontage road if a freeway is ever desired.

The real question is how to tackle Jacksonville. There's no good "direct" routing through the area. The only thing I could think is a 30 mile outer bypass, but that's pushing it. Or upgrade the arterial road on the north end to interstate standards by building frontage roads, urban interchanges, etc. That's happening on the southern end of the bypass.

There's also the Carolina Bays Parkway extension which will be built to interstate standards will extend from South Carolina to the Shallotte Bypass, but I think if they built another 15 miles to I-140, that would be a better solution. It would tie into to I-140 and the proposed Hampstead Bypass on the north end, and the Carolina Bays Parkway on the southern end, which would create about 100 miles of interstate-grade freeway between south of Myrtle Beach and north of Wilmington. Combined with I-40 to I-95, it would be an excellent connection.

For Jacksonville I wonder if it would be cheaper to just buy up the commercial property along the existing highway and upgrade that short section north of the current bypass rather than build a new bypass way out to the west of town that also has to go through wetlands areas and the New River. I suspect though they’ll probably end up just building a western bypass as I could see there being heavy public opposition to disrupting the businesses along Marine Blvd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 24, 2019, 01:31:54 PM
Regarding US 17 in New Bern, who decided to build a cloverleaf interchange at US 70 next to a quarry with no place to go on the other side?

It’s possible that the quarry went there after the interchange was built, though I agree that it does seem boneheaded to put the interchange there if the quarry was already there.

slorydn1 lives in New Bern, so he would probably know more about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 24, 2019, 03:33:10 PM
Regarding US 17 in New Bern, who decided to build a cloverleaf interchange at US 70 next to a quarry with no place to go on the other side?

It’s possible that the quarry went there after the interchange was built, though I agree that it does seem boneheaded to put the interchange there if the quarry was already there.

slorydn1 lives in New Bern, so he would probably know more about it.

Looking (GSV) at whatever's north of the US 17/70 cloverleaf, it certainly isn't a quarry as most of us know it; the elevation of the facility doesn't vary by more than 5 feet at any point.  It's just likely a rockyard or similar material storage location.  Not like I-80/294 south of Chicago, where they actually had to bridge an old quarry.  Clearing a ROW in the New Bern case shouldn't pose much of a physical problem
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 24, 2019, 06:00:55 PM
Nope, the quarry was there first. Circa 2009:

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4871/32990115648_b18068e278_c.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4871/32990115648_18ea070ecb_o.jpg)

Clarks Quarry (https://www.martinmarietta.com/locations/mid-atlantic/north-carolina-east-district/clarks-quarry/)

Either way, that's $$$$$ under the ground that they're not going to give up easily, or without DOT compensating for the loss of future earnings. They moved a road (https://goo.gl/maps/jVaxeoAzbds) in Raleigh to expand a quarry. But I'm sure we'll pay extra one day for someone's stupid planning.

Looks like the quarry is about 40 to 70 feet below the surrounding ground (~26') based on bare-earth LiDAR.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4865/31924717567_f5ca17fd3f_c.jpg) (https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4865/31924717567_d248b8fe2c_o.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 24, 2019, 07:13:24 PM
NCDOT is proposing "improvements" on US-13 / NC 11 between north of Winton to south of Ahoskie. Unlike the previous widening of US-13 north of this location, this project will create 10 miles of limited-access freeway.

The existing Winton Bypass will be widened to 4 lanes, and about 3 miles of new location roadway will be constructed between the two. The new location segment will be constructed to full freeway standards, it will feature an overpass with a cross-road it meets. The project will tie into the Ahoskie NC-11 bypass where it will upgrade the bypass to freeway standards by constructing interchanges and overpasses.

The freeway will likely have a speed limit of 65 MPH and it will have a design speed of 70 MPH. The typical section proposed is the usual with 4 foot right and left shoulders, two 12 foot lanes in each direction, and divided by a 46 foot median.

A public hearing regarding this project will be held on Thursday, January 31 at the Ridgecroft School Media Center in Ahoskie.

(https://i.ibb.co/2gR4Czh/US-13-NC-11-Ahoskie-to-Winton-Page-1-1-min.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/q5hh4b8/US-13-NC-11-Ahoskie-to-Winton-Page-2-1-min.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/b7WLPq5/US-13-NC-11-Ahoskie-to-Winton-Page-3-1-min.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/0MBZtxw/US-13-NC-11-Ahoskie-to-Winton-Page-4-1-min.jpg)

Project R-5311B - https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5311B-2019-01-31.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 24, 2019, 07:53:11 PM
NC 11 south of Ahoskie seems to have been mostly built on a new right-of-way, possibly even controlled access ROW. Have any studies been done looking at making it I-87?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 24, 2019, 08:57:30 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seems like GSV altitude/elevation readings only show what's at the surface, be it earth or water -- and the lower quarry elevations (presumably the pits) have been filled with water (actually, since it's quite white, some water-based mineral solution).  That's what threw me off; it showed little fluctuation between areas in the quarry grounds.  At that point, any US 17 extension to the north will require extensive fill or bridging (one would think it would veer to the left/west a bit to avoid the worst of it.  But it's always been clear this would be a costly section of road to build because of the Neuse river/wetlands to the north; dealing with the quarry just piles on additional expenses. 

One question: where does one access such a LiDAR app as displayed in the visual above? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on January 25, 2019, 05:41:03 AM
Yep the quarry has been there at least since the 80's when I first started visiting here. I believe (don't quote me on it though) that the section closest to US-70 (or south of the Norfolk Southern tracks) hasn't been in service for quite some time now. A lot of the stone for the concrete to build the Neuse River Bridge came from there back in the 90's

The proposed routing of the north of US-70 segment of US-17 displayed on the 2020-2029 Draft STIP has it going on right through it before curving NW a little before the train tracks:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=683e22735d324c89abe812d4db9d6838


Note: I tried to zoom it in before pasting the link but I guess it doesn't work like Google maps....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 25, 2019, 09:55:07 AM
NC 11 south of Ahoskie seems to have been mostly built on a new right-of-way, possibly even controlled access ROW. Have any studies been done looking at making it I-87?

Not for I-87 specifically, no. But there were two separate studies (1991 & 1993) done that covers NC-11 between US-64 and US-13 just north of Ahoskie.

The 1991 study covers the stretch between US-64 and NC-903: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2700_Feasibility-Study_Report_1991.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2700_Feasibility-Study_Report_1991.pdf)

The 1993 study covers the stretch between NC-903 and US-13 just north of Ahoskie: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2900_Feasibility-Study_Report_1993.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2900_Feasibility-Study_Report_1993.pdf)

No more studies have been done since and the only study done specifially for I-87 was the Congressionally-mandated US-64/US-17 corridor, which was also done as two separate studies.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 25, 2019, 02:43:09 PM
The quarry does have an underpass under the railroad which can be quite expensive to build. I wonder if they could just literally acquire the quarry in order to use its underpass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 25, 2019, 03:21:51 PM
^ Looks like it uses existing NC 43 between 17 and south of the river.

And no, ArcGIS doesn't work the same as Google Maps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 25, 2019, 04:02:07 PM
The quarry does have an underpass under the railroad which can be quite expensive to build. I wonder if they could just literally acquire the quarry in order to use its underpass.

Unless the underpass was (a) in the location proposed by NCDOT for the eventual US 17 ROW, and (b) was wide enough to accommodate a 4-lane divided facility, the chances are that it would simply be either bypassed or plowed under by any expressway extension. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 25, 2019, 05:49:54 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seems like GSV altitude/elevation readings only show what's at the surface, be it earth or water -- and the lower quarry elevations (presumably the pits) have been filled with water (actually, since it's quite white, some water-based mineral solution).  That's what threw me off; it showed little fluctuation between areas in the quarry grounds.  At that point, any US 17 extension to the north will require extensive fill or bridging (one would think it would veer to the left/west a bit to avoid the worst of it.  But it's always been clear this would be a costly section of road to build because of the Neuse river/wetlands to the north; dealing with the quarry just piles on additional expenses. 

One question: where does one access such a LiDAR app as displayed in the visual above?

The LiDAR data are from the North Carolina Spatial Data Download (https://sdd.nc.gov/sdd/DataDownload.aspx), which requires creating a free NCID (https://ncid.nc.gov/). The LiDAR data are acquired through the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program (https://flood.nc.gov/ncflood/) as part of their ongoing efforts to improve and expand the state's mapped flood zones. The point cloud was brought into ArcMap (ArcGIS Desktop) for symbolization, but a free, open source GIS software package such as QGIS (https://qgis.org/en/site/) or GRASS (https://grass.osgeo.org/) should work (probably GRASS).

Yep the quarry has been there at least since the 80's when I first started visiting here. I believe (don't quote me on it though) that the section closest to US-70 (or south of the Norfolk Southern tracks) hasn't been in service for quite some time now. A lot of the stone for the concrete to build the Neuse River Bridge came from there back in the 90's

The proposed routing of the north of US-70 segment of US-17 displayed on the 2020-2029 Draft STIP has it going on right through it before curving NW a little before the train tracks:

http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=683e22735d324c89abe812d4db9d6838


Note: I tried to zoom it in before pasting the link but I guess it doesn't work like Google maps....

Using the historic imagery slider in Google Earth, it appears the quarry is still expanding in the southern section nearest US 70. There's a notable change between February and November 2017. You can also compare several years of imagery on Craven County's GIS website (http://gis.cravencountync.gov/maps/map.htm).

^ Looks like it uses existing NC 43 between 17 and south of the river.

And no, ArcGIS doesn't work the same as Google Maps.

Within the Draft STIP web map, you can use the "Share" button at the top and check to "Share current map extent" to get a zoomed in link, like this one (http://arcg.is/1OyPuX).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on January 28, 2019, 03:57:18 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 04:04:03 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.
I had wondered about that too the last few times I went through. A lot of construction, but I've not been able to find anything on widening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 28, 2019, 04:07:10 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.

They’re repaving I-95 and replacing some of the bridges. The new bridges are being built wider in preparation for widening I-95, though the actual widening project is still a few years off. IIRC, the plan is to widen I-95 to 8 lanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 04:16:44 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.

They’re repaving I-95 and replacing some of the bridges. The new bridges are being built wider in preparation for widening I-95, though the actual widening project is still a few years off. IIRC, the plan is to widen I-95 to 8 lanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html)
In the next year or so, I-95 will be widened to 8 lanes between Exit 56 and Exit 81 (I-40), and eventually Exit 40 to Exit 22. Those 8-lane areas have the highest traffic amounts on any segment of I-95 in North Carolina. The rest of it I believe is only planned for 6 lanes, currently unfunded, which would include this Kenly and Selma segment only being 6 lanes.

Funny, that article from last year mentions the Exit 56 to Exit 81 widening wouldn't begin until 2026. Now, thanks to the federal grant, it's starting this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 28, 2019, 04:49:02 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.

They’re repaving I-95 and replacing some of the bridges. The new bridges are being built wider in preparation for widening I-95, though the actual widening project is still a few years off. IIRC, the plan is to widen I-95 to 8 lanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html)
In the next year or so, I-95 will be widened to 8 lanes between Exit 56 and Exit 81 (I-40), and eventually Exit 40 to Exit 22. Those 8-lane areas have the highest traffic amounts on any segment of I-95 in North Carolina. The rest of it I believe is only planned for 6 lanes, currently unfunded, which would include this Kenly and Selma segment only being 6 lanes.

Funny, that article from last year mentions the Exit 56 to Exit 81 widening wouldn't begin until 2026. Now, thanks to the federal grant, it's starting this year.

So the ultimate plan is at least six lanes through the whole state?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 28, 2019, 04:59:06 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting about its proposed improvements between Andrews and Stecoah as part of Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor K:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 28, 2019, 05:05:54 PM
Two contracts were awarded for the replacement of 7 bridges across Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, and Robeson counties. Construction to begin after February 25 and will wrap up in the summer of 2021. Bridge locations listed here:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-28-seven-new-bridges-coming-division-6.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-28-seven-new-bridges-coming-division-6.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 28, 2019, 05:38:19 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.

They’re repaving I-95 and replacing some of the bridges. The new bridges are being built wider in preparation for widening I-95, though the actual widening project is still a few years off. IIRC, the plan is to widen I-95 to 8 lanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html)
In the next year or so, I-95 will be widened to 8 lanes between Exit 56 and Exit 81 (I-40), and eventually Exit 40 to Exit 22. Those 8-lane areas have the highest traffic amounts on any segment of I-95 in North Carolina. The rest of it I believe is only planned for 6 lanes, currently unfunded, which would include this Kenly and Selma segment only being 6 lanes.

Funny, that article from last year mentions the Exit 56 to Exit 81 widening wouldn't begin until 2026. Now, thanks to the federal grant, it's starting this year.

So the ultimate plan is at least six lanes through the whole state?
Correct. 8-lanes on the busiest stretches, 6 lanes elsewhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 28, 2019, 06:00:45 PM
Just drove the length of I-95 through NC en route to Hampton Roads for work this week.

What is the goal of the construction b/w Selma and Kenly? Will there be an extra lane in each direction, thereby making this the first widening of I-95 beyond 4 lanes in NC?  Or is this merely reconstruction and bridge rehabs?  I do recall this being a fairly rough segment of roadway around Kenly, since I believe that the US 401 exit was once a temporary northern terminus for many years.

They’re repaving I-95 and replacing some of the bridges. The new bridges are being built wider in preparation for widening I-95, though the actual widening project is still a few years off. IIRC, the plan is to widen I-95 to 8 lanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/traffic/article165448037.html)
In the next year or so, I-95 will be widened to 8 lanes between Exit 56 and Exit 81 (I-40), and eventually Exit 40 to Exit 22. Those 8-lane areas have the highest traffic amounts on any segment of I-95 in North Carolina. The rest of it I believe is only planned for 6 lanes, currently unfunded, which would include this Kenly and Selma segment only being 6 lanes.

Funny, that article from last year mentions the Exit 56 to Exit 81 widening wouldn't begin until 2026. Now, thanks to the federal grant, it's starting this year.

So the ultimate plan is at least six lanes through the whole state?
Correct. 8-lanes on the busiest stretches, 6 lanes elsewhere.

I foresee a lot of truck traffic self rerouting on I-85 when 95 goes full bore reconstruction.  Only time will tell.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 28, 2019, 06:10:40 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting about its proposed improvements between Andrews and Stecoah as part of Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor K:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx)
This is a hot potato. The proposal (it's been around for years) is to relocate US 74 to the west from Andrews to Stecoah and then bring it back along NC 28. This is to avoid any effort to widen the twisting 2-lane road in the gorges through it passes now. There is plenty of opposition to this idea since it involves a new 4-lane expressway (or freeway?) grade highway through some very wild mountain territory.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 28, 2019, 06:17:58 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting about its proposed improvements between Andrews and Stecoah as part of Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor K:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx)
This is a hot potato. The proposal (it's been around for years) is to relocate US 74 to the west from Andrews to Stecoah and then bring it back along NC 28. This is to avoid any effort to widen the twisting 2-lane road in the gorges through it passes now. There is plenty of opposition to this idea since it involves a new 4-lane expressway (or freeway?) grade highway through some very wild mountain territory.

I don't think it will ever happen. The costs and impacts are so high at this point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 28, 2019, 06:19:50 PM
Speaking of the I-95 widening starting soon, approximately 18 miles of I-26 south of Asheville will start being widened this summer. I don't think I've seen it mentioned recently.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 28, 2019, 06:25:32 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting about its proposed improvements between Andrews and Stecoah as part of Appalachian Development Highway System Corridor K:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/A-0009-2019-02-12.aspx)
This is a hot potato. The proposal (it's been around for years) is to relocate US 74 to the west from Andrews to Stecoah and then bring it back along NC 28. This is to avoid any effort to widen the twisting 2-lane road in the gorges through it passes now. There is plenty of opposition to this idea since it involves a new 4-lane expressway (or freeway?) grade highway through some very wild mountain territory.

I don't think it will ever happen. The costs and impacts are so high at this point.

A proposed cost of $680 Million and, near GSMNP, pipe dream at best.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on January 28, 2019, 08:10:38 PM
Agree, I can't see Corridor K being completed any time in the near future. I do wonder if the portion from Stecoah to Robbinsville (seemingly the portion of the route most badly in need of an upgrade) will be broken off and completed as its own project. Presumably it'd follow up from the end of the upgraded portion of NC-28, bypass a particularly twisty section of NC-143 to the south, and end at US-129 south of town. I have no clue how the southern section would be built, as it'd need to blast through ~4000' peaks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 29, 2019, 12:18:30 AM
Earlier today I drove on NC 24 between Fayetteville and Clinton.  This was my first time driving on NC 24 in five years and the road has changed a lot!! The widening is now complete between Fayetteville and Clinton. 

However, I must say that traffic was a mess on the west side of Clinton between the bypass and Sampson Community College as NCDOT is putting the finishing touches on changing a center turning lane into a median.

After getting pass the construction mess, the road transitions nicely into a 4 lane divided rural highway.  The Speed Limit is only 55, but there are surprisingly a lot of driveways on this corridor.  NCDOT really shows it's love for superstreets on this highway.  It is also a fairly curvy road and a couple times I had to tap my brakes because there were a couple roads that intersected NC 24 on a curve and I found a couple impatient motorists that darted out into the left lane to complete their "Michigan Left."

Despite a couple dangerous superstreet intersections on NC 24, it is very nice to not have to slow down to 35 MPH anymore to go thru Roseboro & Autrytown.  Those towns have been bypassed.  There is one interchange on the new NC 24 and it is NC 242 just north of Roseboro.


There is only one at-grade signalized intersection on the New NC 24 and it is at a shopping center just east of I-95.  Westbound traffic has one superstreet traffic light and Eastbound has 2-3.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 29, 2019, 12:24:01 AM
One more thing on NC 24,

the remaining two lane section between the US 421 bypass and I-40 is going to be divided into two phases.

Phase 1 will put NC 24 on a new location south of it's existing route and will go from the bypass to Cecil Odie Road. Construction should start in 2020

Phase 2 will be from Cecil Odie Road to I-40.  This will remain south of the existing NC 24, no more driving thru "Turkey" if you don't want too.  However, Construction is not slated to start until 2029.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 12:36:17 AM
Earlier today I drove on NC 24 between Fayetteville and Clinton.  This was my first time driving on NC 24 in five years and the road has changed a lot!! The widening is now complete between Fayetteville and Clinton. 

However, I must say that traffic was a mess on the west side of Clinton between the bypass and Sampson Community College as NCDOT is putting the finishing touches on changing a center turning lane into a median.

After getting pass the construction mess, the road transitions nicely into a 4 lane divided rural highway.  The Speed Limit is only 55, but there are surprisingly a lot of driveways on this corridor.  NCDOT really shows it's love for superstreets on this highway.  It is also a fairly curvy road and a couple times I had to tap my brakes because there were a couple roads that intersected NC 24 on a curve and I found a couple impatient motorists that darted out into the left lane to complete their "Michigan Left."

Despite a couple dangerous superstreet intersections on NC 24, it is very nice to not have to slow down to 35 MPH anymore to go thru Roseboro & Autrytown.  Those towns have been bypassed.  There is one interchange on the new NC 24 and it is NC 242 just north of Roseboro.


There is only one at-grade signalized intersection on the New NC 24 and it is at a shopping center just east of I-95.  Westbound traffic has one superstreet traffic light and Eastbound has 2-3.
Am I the only one who thinks this highway, along with most 4-lane divided highways in both North Carolina and Virginia could easily handle 65 MPH? I mean, it's like that down in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The roads seem safe enough to handle those speeds, and are plenty wide.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on January 29, 2019, 07:54:54 AM
Earlier today I drove on NC 24 between Fayetteville and Clinton.  This was my first time driving on NC 24 in five years and the road has changed a lot!! The widening is now complete between Fayetteville and Clinton. 

However, I must say that traffic was a mess on the west side of Clinton between the bypass and Sampson Community College as NCDOT is putting the finishing touches on changing a center turning lane into a median.

After getting pass the construction mess, the road transitions nicely into a 4 lane divided rural highway.  The Speed Limit is only 55, but there are surprisingly a lot of driveways on this corridor.  NCDOT really shows it's love for superstreets on this highway.  It is also a fairly curvy road and a couple times I had to tap my brakes because there were a couple roads that intersected NC 24 on a curve and I found a couple impatient motorists that darted out into the left lane to complete their "Michigan Left."

Despite a couple dangerous superstreet intersections on NC 24, it is very nice to not have to slow down to 35 MPH anymore to go thru Roseboro & Autrytown.  Those towns have been bypassed.  There is one interchange on the new NC 24 and it is NC 242 just north of Roseboro.


There is only one at-grade signalized intersection on the New NC 24 and it is at a shopping center just east of I-95.  Westbound traffic has one superstreet traffic light and Eastbound has 2-3.
Am I the only one who thinks this highway, along with most 4-lane divided highways in both North Carolina and Virginia could easily handle 65 MPH? I mean, it's like that down in Georgia, Alabama, and Florida. The roads seem safe enough to handle those speeds, and are plenty wide.

You're not the only one, 64 south of Durham can handle at least a 60 mph speed limit, it's 65 on the Pittsboro bypass, after being out in Montana and seeing a 55 mph on a 2 lane, there are some 2 lane roads that can be bumped up too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 29, 2019, 08:25:16 AM
One more thing on NC 24,

the remaining two lane section between the US 421 bypass and I-40 is going to be divided into two phases.

Phase 1 will put NC 24 on a new location south of it's existing route and will go from the bypass to Cecil Odie Road. Construction should start in 2020

Phase 2 will be from Cecil Odie Road to I-40.  This will remain south of the existing NC 24, no more driving thru "Turkey" if you don't want too.  However, Construction is not slated to start until 2029.

Is the new alignment planned as a controlled access freeway or just an at-grade expressway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 10:49:40 AM
You're not the only one, 64 south of Durham can handle at least a 60 mph speed limit, it's 65 on the Pittsboro bypass, after being out in Montana and seeing a 55 mph on a 2 lane, there are some 2 lane roads that can be bumped up too.
I think NCDOT's standard is that four-lane non-limited-access highways can have a max of 60 MPH (US 13, US 17, and a few others have this, whereas freeways (like the Pittsboro bypass) can be up to 70 MPH. Traveling a couple states down though, Florida, Georgia, and Alabama have 65 MPH posted on non-limited-access highways, and they run smoothly.

As for two-lane, I'm pretty sure the max is 55 MPH. Florida has 60 MPH posted on many two-lane roads as well. I've been to Texas, where their standard is way higher, 75 MPH on two-lane, four-lane non-limited-access, or freeway, doesn't matter. But that's Texas being Texas (not that it's a bad thing)

Is the new alignment planned as a controlled access freeway or just an at-grade expressway?
Judging by the rest of it, I'd say at-grade expressway. The way they did the rest of the project, I'd say there's no intent for NC 24 to ever become a freeway, just a four-lane roadway feeding the towns into the interstate system. I-40 and I-95 are not far from this road.

Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 02:39:45 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Which specific section of US-13 are you referring to? The recently widened part concurrent with US-158? That particular project I believe was done more for a better hurricane evacuation route rather than traffic volumes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on January 29, 2019, 04:17:28 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Which specific section of US-13 are you referring to? The recently widened part concurrent with US-158? That particular project I believe was done more for a better hurricane evacuation route rather than traffic volumes.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/R-5311B-2019-01-31.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 05:56:46 PM
Which specific section of US-13 are you referring to? The recently widened part concurrent with US-158?
They are widening the Ahoskie Bypass to freeway standards with interchanges + overpasses, building 4 miles of new location full-blown freeway to tie into the Winton Bypass, and tying with US 158 north of there.

The new location segment + the Ahoskie Bypass would be fine without interchanges. The big NC 11 + 11 intersection concern wouldn't exist if it was a super street design 4-lanes through there. But, we will instead have a diamond interchange.

I'm not complaining, the higher quality you make it, the safer and more efficient it runs, it will also have a speed limit of 65 MPH, but I simply don't see why it's warranting this much construction + money being added for interchanges and overpasses, yet they can't even get money on US 17 for I-87 upgrades. US 17 carries double the traffic of US 13.

That particular project I believe was done more for a better hurricane evacuation route rather than traffic volumes.
I agree how that concurrency was done, it was constructed as at-grade expressway with intersections, etc. The proposed segment south of there will be built to full-blown freeway standards, when it should be built to 4-lane at-grade expressway instead. It would save over $10 million likely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 29, 2019, 06:03:44 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on this. Had to Google where these towns are, and according to NCDOT's AADT data (http://arcg.is/1q9Pf40) there are 4,600 to 8,300 vehicles on this stretch. Wow. Must be nice to live in eastern North Carolina. Then again, we were just discussing $600 million+ for Corridor K in far western NC, which has basically the same amount of traffic. Meanwhile, in Charlotte and Raleigh.... Glad the data-driven project prioritization is working.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:19:43 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on this. Had to Google where these towns are, and according to NCDOT's AADT data (http://arcg.is/1q9Pf40) there are 4,600 to 8,300 vehicles on this stretch. Wow. Must be nice to live in eastern North Carolina. Then again, we were just discussing $600 million+ for Corridor K in far western NC, which has basically the same amount of traffic. Meanwhile, in Charlotte and Raleigh.... Glad the data-driven project prioritization is working.  :rolleyes:
The only problem with Corridor K is the cost. This project will only cost $60 million (still too much). I'd be willing to bet if they built it at-grade it would be max $40 million. Projects on US 17, Future I-87 are being pushed back for 10+ years and that carries more traffic, and would actually eliminate some traffic signals. This project would add interchanges at adequate at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 29, 2019, 06:23:31 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on this. Had to Google where these towns are, and according to NCDOT's AADT data (http://arcg.is/1q9Pf40) there are 4,600 to 8,300 vehicles on this stretch. Wow. Must be nice to live in eastern North Carolina. Then again, we were just discussing $600 million+ for Corridor K in far western NC, which has basically the same amount of traffic. Meanwhile, in Charlotte and Raleigh.... Glad the data-driven project prioritization is working.  :rolleyes:
I usually defend NCDOT on expressway projects, but this does seem excessive, especially since important pieces of US 17 such as Washington to Williamston are being upgraded only to at-grade expressways rather than freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 06:26:52 PM
Then again, they are converting 10 miles of US 13 up near Ahoskie and Virginia into a full blown freeway for some reason? I don't see why at-grade expressway isn't good enough, I think like 5,000 people use that road a day.

Yeah, I wanted to comment on this. Had to Google where these towns are, and according to NCDOT's AADT data (http://arcg.is/1q9Pf40) there are 4,600 to 8,300 vehicles on this stretch. Wow. Must be nice to live in eastern North Carolina. Then again, we were just discussing $600 million+ for Corridor K in far western NC, which has basically the same amount of traffic. Meanwhile, in Charlotte and Raleigh.... Glad the data-driven project prioritization is working.  :rolleyes:
I usually defend NCDOT on expressway projects, but this does seem excessive, especially since important pieces of US 17 such as Washington to Williamston are being upgraded only to at-grade expressways rather than freeways.
I was hoping the Williamston to Washington section would be built on new location, still expressway, but limited-access so it could be upgraded later on. That's how widening on major corridors or have potential to be should be done. US 13, is not. US 17, is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jmiles32 on January 29, 2019, 07:45:04 PM
Which specific section of US-13 are you referring to? The recently widened part concurrent with US-158?
They are widening the Ahoskie Bypass to freeway standards with interchanges + overpasses, building 4 miles of new location full-blown freeway to tie into the Winton Bypass, and tying with US 158 north of there.

The new location segment + the Ahoskie Bypass would be fine without interchanges. The big NC 11 + 11 intersection concern wouldn't exist if it was a super street design 4-lanes through there. But, we will instead have a diamond interchange.

I'm not complaining, the higher quality you make it, the safer and more efficient it runs, it will also have a speed limit of 65 MPH, but I simply don't see why it's warranting this much construction + money being added for interchanges and overpasses, yet they can't even get money on US 17 for I-87 upgrades. US 17 carries double the traffic of US 13.

Totally agree. Maybe NC-11 south is Ahoskie is planned to be some major corridor or something. But then again that seems to backstab NC's plan for I-87 to be the major southern corridor to Hampton Roads so at this point its anyone's guess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 07:56:42 PM
Which specific section of US-13 are you referring to? The recently widened part concurrent with US-158?
They are widening the Ahoskie Bypass to freeway standards with interchanges + overpasses, building 4 miles of new location full-blown freeway to tie into the Winton Bypass, and tying with US 158 north of there.

The new location segment + the Ahoskie Bypass would be fine without interchanges. The big NC 11 + 11 intersection concern wouldn't exist if it was a super street design 4-lanes through there. But, we will instead have a diamond interchange.

I'm not complaining, the higher quality you make it, the safer and more efficient it runs, it will also have a speed limit of 65 MPH, but I simply don't see why it's warranting this much construction + money being added for interchanges and overpasses, yet they can't even get money on US 17 for I-87 upgrades. US 17 carries double the traffic of US 13.

Totally agree. Maybe NC-11 south is Ahoskie is planned to be some major corridor or something. But then again that seems to backstab NC's plan for I-87 to be the major southern corridor to Hampton Roads so at this point its anyone's guess.
If NC-11 is planned to be a major interstate, I-87 is dead. I-87's routing has about 15-20 additional miles, and if NC-11 was turned into a freeway itself, they'd be killing I-87's effectiveness as a non-stop interstate from Norfolk to Raleigh.

I support four-laning NC-11, but not converting it into a freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 29, 2019, 08:30:12 PM
A while back there was a push to have NCDOT change its preference to multilane from US 13 from Windsor to Ahoskie to instead NC 11 from Bethel to Ahoskie.

This was years before the meaningful push for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2019, 08:35:21 PM
A while back there was a push to have NCDOT change its preference to multilane from US 13 from Windsor to Ahoskie to instead NC 11 from Bethel to Ahoskie.

This was years before the meaningful push for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate.
I understand the multi-laning push, but this is a freeway they want.

And wasn't the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate proposed in the early 90s? Or was this multilaning of NC 11 / US 13 debate before then?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 30, 2019, 12:32:51 AM
A while back there was a push to have NCDOT change its preference to multilane from US 13 from Windsor to Ahoskie to instead NC 11 from Bethel to Ahoskie.

This was years before the meaningful push for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate.
I understand the multi-laning push, but this is a freeway they want.

And wasn't the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate proposed in the early 90s? Or was this multilaning of NC 11 / US 13 debate before then?

The "vehicle" for the eventual designation of I-87 was High Priority Corridor #13, which was first outlined within the ISTEA legislation of 1991 as a Norfolk-Raleigh corridor following US 17 & US 64; the I-87 designation was simply appended to the HPC authorizing language -- which is S.O.P. for Interstate additions these days (others: HPC 68/I-11 northern extension, HPC 45/I-22, HPC 57/I-41). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:34:41 AM
A while back there was a push to have NCDOT change its preference to multilane from US 13 from Windsor to Ahoskie to instead NC 11 from Bethel to Ahoskie.

This was years before the meaningful push for a Raleigh-Norfolk interstate.
I understand the multi-laning push, but this is a freeway they want.

And wasn't the Raleigh-Norfolk interstate proposed in the early 90s? Or was this multilaning of NC 11 / US 13 debate before then?

The "vehicle" for the eventual designation of I-87 was High Priority Corridor #13, which was first outlined within the ISTEA legislation of 1991 as a Norfolk-Raleigh corridor following US 17 & US 64; the I-87 designation was simply appended to the HPC authorizing language -- which is S.O.P. for Interstate additions these days (others: HPC 68/I-11 northern extension, HPC 45/I-22, HPC 57/I-41).
Now thinking about it, I believe the original push was eventually for an interstate / freeway, but the first priority was completing 4-lanes from Raleigh to Norfolk. The last piece in North Carolina was the 2008 Windsor Bypass, and the final overall was upgrading Dominion Blvd to interstate standards in Chesapeake (with the exception of some extremely odd signage). Now that it's all completed, the push is for a freeway spanning the corridor.

The U.S. 64 relocation built between Tarboro - Williamston in 1996 - 2004 was built to full interstate standards unlike the previous 60s - 80s freeways before it. I believe the HPC #13 designation had something to do with that, however the 2008 Windsor Bypass and 2002 Elizabeth City Bypass were not built to full interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 30, 2019, 09:51:45 AM
The only defense I would give NCDOT for upgrading US 13 in Northeast NC is that it's going to create another high speed corridor to get to the Hampton Roads Metro area.  In this case, it would be quicker getting to Suffolk and the western suburbs of Hampton Roads via US 13 from Ahoskie area then it would be to take US 17.  US 17 is great for getting to VA Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk.  Not so much for Suffolk, Portsmouth and maybe Newport News.

A lot of people that live on the US 13 corridor between Ahoskie and the NC/VA line probably commute to jobs in Suffolk and buy groceries and gas in Suffolk (lower sales and gas tax than NC).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 30, 2019, 03:50:34 PM
Heads up to anyone travelling the US-17 corridor in the New Bern area the next 3 months:


https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/US-17-Bypass-closing-for-three-months-504544821.html)


I really don't think it will be a big deal, they really hadn't made any changes to the old road except for 1 new shopping center (meaning one new stoplight) since the bypass had opened, and there isn't a lot of traffic at any given time of the day on the bypass during the winter anyway.

NCDOT has finally posted a press release on this.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-30-new-bern-bypass-to-close-for-three-months.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-01-30-new-bern-bypass-to-close-for-three-months.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:00:56 PM
The only defense I would give NCDOT for upgrading US 13 in Northeast NC is that it's going to create another high speed corridor to get to the Hampton Roads Metro area.  In this case, it would be quicker getting to Suffolk and the western suburbs of Hampton Roads via US 13 from Ahoskie area then it would be to take US 17.  US 17 is great for getting to VA Beach, Chesapeake and Norfolk.  Not so much for Suffolk, Portsmouth and maybe Newport News.

A lot of people that live on the US 13 corridor between Ahoskie and the NC/VA line probably commute to jobs in Suffolk and buy groceries and gas in Suffolk (lower sales and gas tax than NC).
I understand the freeway argument on US 13 to some extent, but if it was a 70 MPH freeway, anybody bound to Chesapeake, VA Beach, or Norfolk would also use it. I-87 should be the "main highway" in eastern NC and connecting Raleigh / I-95 to VA, the one with the most traffic, whereas US 13 can handle a four-lane upgrade and run smoothly with the little traffic it has. If I'm not mistaken, most of NC 11 south of Ahoskie is all built on 4-lane right of way. No R/W costs would be needed to widen that portion. A freeway would though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 30, 2019, 05:02:34 PM
The U.S. 64 relocation built between Tarboro - Williamston in 1996 - 2004 was built to full interstate standards unlike the previous 60s - 80s freeways before it. I believe the HPC #13 designation had something to do with that, however the 2008 Windsor Bypass and 2002 Elizabeth City Bypass were not built to full interstate standards.

That fact has led me to surmise that NCDOT, after HPC #13 was designated, had a potential Interstate corridor in mind all along (likely prompted and abetted by political interests in that part of the state) for certainly US 64 and likely US 17 as well; so a decision was made to initially construct the remaining Tarboro-Williamston US 64 segment to Interstate standards (essentially adding paved inner/outer shoulders at the appropriate width) so it wouldn't require upgrades if & when the Interstate designation was imminent.  As it turns out, their assumptions panned out!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 05:47:23 PM
The U.S. 64 relocation built between Tarboro - Williamston in 1996 - 2004 was built to full interstate standards unlike the previous 60s - 80s freeways before it. I believe the HPC #13 designation had something to do with that, however the 2008 Windsor Bypass and 2002 Elizabeth City Bypass were not built to full interstate standards.

That fact has led me to surmise that NCDOT, after HPC #13 was designated, had a potential Interstate corridor in mind all along (likely prompted and abetted by political interests in that part of the state) for certainly US 64 and likely US 17 as well; so a decision was made to initially construct the remaining Tarboro-Williamston US 64 segment to Interstate standards (essentially adding paved inner/outer shoulders at the appropriate width) so it wouldn't require upgrades if & when the Interstate designation was imminent.  As it turns out, their assumptions panned out!
Correct, the interstate concept connecting Raleigh to Norfolk via Elizabeth City has been around since the 90s. Only now is there so much talk about it, because it has an official number - I-87.

Notice also how the talk about it has since decreased because it's no longer big anymore. Once NCDOT announces any upgraded segments for US 17, the talk will ramp back up significantly. Once the interchange projects near Hertford begin or simply starts getting designed, the talk will ramp up significantly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2019, 07:26:33 PM
I emailed the project manager in regards to the Ahoskie / Winton US 13 / NC 11 freeway project concerning the issue of the proposed interchanges / overpasses over at-grade intersections.

This was the response I received -

"The decision regarding the issue of at-grade intersection vs. interchanges and overpasses was made prior to my involvement in the project and are considered as part of the planning document. I do know that most if not all of your concerns were brought-up and were included in the preliminary alternatives comparison. We are currently in the Final Design phase and the final alternate has been selected."

I followed up for clarification, but I'm pretty sure that the design for interchanges / overpasses is finalized and will not be changed. Still seems like a waste of money IMO when that money for interchanges / overpasses could be going into interchange / overpass projects along US 17, actually a corridor designated a Future Interstate unlike NC 11 / US 13, carries double the traffic, is a major trucking corridor, and has a signalized intersection that needs to be replaced unlike this roadway.

I find this interesting too, because he is based in Edenton, right along the I-87 corridor. However, he did mention this was determined before he was involved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 01, 2019, 07:51:55 AM
If NC-11 is planned to be a major interstate, I-87 is dead. I-87's routing has about 15-20 additional miles, and if NC-11 was turned into a freeway itself, they'd be killing I-87's effectiveness as a non-stop interstate from Norfolk to Raleigh.

I support four-laning NC-11, but not converting it into a freeway.
 

The same local/state dynamics that brought us the eventual conversion of US 264 into I-587 are at work with the NC 11 corridor from Bethel south to Kinston.   It'll probably be some sort of 3di as an auxiliary of either I-87 or possibly I-42.  It appears that the aim of E NC politicos is to create a miniature Interstate-grade grid in their area; Greenville is simply the hub of activity in this regard.  Eventually the tobacco industry that has dominated commerce in the region will subside; it appears that local interests are "prepping" the region to be a significant distribution center to replace tobacco growing & preparation as the principal revenue source.  The port connectors (I-87, I-42) are the major "spokes" of the area network -- particularly post-Panamax (or so local boosters hope); I-587 and a possible N-S connector along NC 11 make up the secondary access roads in order to publicize the Greenville area as a place to locate warehousing and distribution facilities.  While it is likely that US 17 will eventually receive the Interstate treatment as a sort of "Atlantic" corridor, the locals are not waiting around for that -- they're busy formulating the elevation of their local roads as a corridor cluster of their own -- calculating that the main trunk Interstates (42,87) will be completed on some sort of schedule to provide the traffic base. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 01, 2019, 01:18:23 PM
The same local/state dynamics that brought us the eventual conversion of US 264 into I-587 are at work with the NC 11 corridor from Bethel south to Kinston.

Not so much lately. The mayors of Greenville and Kinston that pushed for that are no longer in office. Allen Thomas resigned from Greenville to become executive director of the Global TransPark in Kinston and B.J. Murphy lost his re-election bid in Kinston. There’s been no further talk about upgrading NC-11 from their successors...at least not publicly. There’s also been no further attempt by local congressmen to re-introduce the ENC Gateway Act, which previously fell on it’s face in 2016 shortly before the elections.

Greenville is currently focused on projects in it’s area, such as the Greenville Southwest Bypass and the 10th Street Connector and Kinston is focused on I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 01, 2019, 04:58:11 PM
^^^^^^^
Fair enough.  The "change in management" in the region must mean that the Greenville Southwest Bypass is now a stand-alone project not specifically tied to any future prospects for the NC 11 corridor.  But then the Kinston "refocusing" on I-42 rather than other potential distractions can only enhance the near-term outlook for that corridor. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 01, 2019, 05:06:45 PM
^^^^^^^
Fair enough.  The "change in management" in the region must mean that the Greenville Southwest Bypass is now a stand-alone project not specifically tied to any future prospects for the NC 11 corridor.  But then the Kinston "refocusing" on I-42 rather than other potential distractions can only enhance the near-term outlook for that corridor.
Those projects are still the STIP for review every two years. It's not "fully" gone. I agree it could become an I-X42 in the future. I wouldn't say I-X87, because if they did both, Greensville would have an I-X87 and I-X42 mixing at their city. But I'm sure some would say it's already serviced by a four-lane arterial highway and does not warrant upgrades. Same with I-42, and any new interstates. But that's different story for a different time...not getting back into that mess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 01, 2019, 07:54:39 PM
A public meeting is being held in Four Oaks on February 28 regarding proposed improvements to the I-95/US-701 interchange (Exit 90).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-01-johnston-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-01-johnston-open-house.aspx)

...and the new Bonner Bridge is expected to open to traffic later this month, weather permitting.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-01-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-01-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 07, 2019, 10:47:00 AM
The new Bonner Bridge could be getting a new name.

https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/ (https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 07, 2019, 05:48:26 PM
The new Bonner Bridge could be getting a new name.

https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/ (https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/)
Whatever they will name it, NCDOT will be having a Community Day to celebrate the completion of the bridge this Saturday (a more formal dedication event will be held later):
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-07-bonner-bridge-reopening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-07-bonner-bridge-reopening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 13, 2019, 01:40:26 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on February 26 at the Maxwell Center in Goldsboro to discuss widening US-13 (N. Berkeley Boulevard) to a 4-lane median-divided road between New Hope Road and Saulston Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx)

As someone that grew up there and commuted that stretch everyday, these improvements are much welcome.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2019, 05:19:54 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on February 26 at the Maxwell Center in Goldsboro to discuss widening US-13 (N. Berkeley Boulevard) to a 4-lane median-divided road between New Hope Road and Saulston Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx)

As someone that grew up there and commuted that stretch everyday, these improvements are much welcome.
Smart that the recently built US 70 Bypass / US 13 interchange was designed with US 13 having four lanes as opposed to 2 lanes, because now they won't have to widen the overpass. Looking ahead into the future can really pay off on new construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 14, 2019, 09:39:55 AM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on February 26 at the Maxwell Center in Goldsboro to discuss widening US-13 (N. Berkeley Boulevard) to a 4-lane median-divided road between New Hope Road and Saulston Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-wayne-county-open-house.aspx)

As someone that grew up there and commuted that stretch everyday, these improvements are much welcome.

A little more info here, as well as other upcoming projects in the area:

https://www.newsargus.com/news/public-meeting-planned-on-berkeley-blvd-widening/article_462a2624-3052-11e9-81b7-af683280e9e6.html (https://www.newsargus.com/news/public-meeting-planned-on-berkeley-blvd-widening/article_462a2624-3052-11e9-81b7-af683280e9e6.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 15, 2019, 07:43:26 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-09-this-week-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-11-09-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

Quote
U.S. 421 Reopening

The Department of Transportation has reopened a key route to and from the Wilmington area following severe damage from Hurricane Florence. U.S. 421, which runs parallel to Interstate 40 in southeastern North Carolina, received the most damage of any state road when the storm hit in September.

Knowing the critical need to quickly restore traffic on this route, NCDOT installed a temporary bridge on one side of the road, with a single lane in each direction. This allows drivers to get through the area while planning and construction of two new bridges at the site takes place.

Construction of the new permanent bridges has begun. Completion set for spring 2020.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-15-new-hanover-permanent-bridges.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-15-new-hanover-permanent-bridges.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 17, 2019, 08:45:47 PM
Photos from the visit to the Bonner Bridge Community Day -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157678754899038
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 08:52:48 PM
Photos from the visit to the Bonner Bridge Community Day -

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157678754899038
Nice, that thing sure is impressive! I need to get down there soon after it opens. When exactly is it planned to open?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 17, 2019, 09:34:25 PM
Photos from the visit to the Bonner Bridge Community Day -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157678754899038
Nice, that thing sure is impressive! I need to get down there soon after it opens. When exactly is it planned to open?

"There's now an official opening date for the new span of roadway from north to south over the Oregon Inlet.  The ribbon cutting for the new 2.8 mile long, 90-foot high Bonner Bridge in Dare County will be April 2."

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/new-bonner-bridge-s-official-opening-date-set-for-april/1788552957
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 09:44:54 PM
Photos from the visit to the Bonner Bridge Community Day -
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157678754899038
Nice, that thing sure is impressive! I need to get down there soon after it opens. When exactly is it planned to open?

"There's now an official opening date for the new span of roadway from north to south over the Oregon Inlet.  The ribbon cutting for the new 2.8 mile long, 90-foot high Bonner Bridge in Dare County will be April 2."

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/new-bonner-bridge-s-official-opening-date-set-for-april/1788552957
Thank you for the information.

Now, they need to get started on the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 02:44:28 PM
Correction - The Bonner Bridge opens sometime next week, once the lines are striped correctly. The official ribbon cutting ceremony is on April 2nd.

"Though the Bonner Bridge replacement is slated to open to vehicular traffic within a matter of days, a formal “grand opening”  and official ribbon cutting ceremony is set for April 2, with Governor Roy Cooper among the expected guests.

NCDOT Public Relations Officer Tim Haas told the Island Free Press late last week that the bridge will open once traffic lines are painted on the ramps that lead to the bridge structure itself.
“That’s the only thing we’re waiting on, and that should happen in the next few days, assuming the weather holds,”  he said."


https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/official-ribbon-cutting-for-new-bridge-set-for-april-2/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 18, 2019, 06:19:35 PM
Correction - The Bonner Bridge opens sometime next week, once the lines are striped correctly. The official ribbon cutting ceremony is on April 2nd.

"Though the Bonner Bridge replacement is slated to open to vehicular traffic within a matter of days, a formal “grand opening”  and official ribbon cutting ceremony is set for April 2, with Governor Roy Cooper among the expected guests.

NCDOT Public Relations Officer Tim Haas told the Island Free Press late last week that the bridge will open once traffic lines are painted on the ramps that lead to the bridge structure itself.
“That’s the only thing we’re waiting on, and that should happen in the next few days, assuming the weather holds,”  he said."


https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/official-ribbon-cutting-for-new-bridge-set-for-april-2/
We don't know yet what the new bridge will be called; there's a movement to name it for Mark Basnight, the late state senator from Nags Head (he was a powerful figure in NC politics and pushed aggressively for the upgrading of US 64 to a freeway). It's pretty clear it won't be called the Bonner Bridge this time; Herbert C. Bonner was a US senator from 1940 to 1965 and a strong supporter of racial segregation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 18, 2019, 07:26:26 PM
Correction - The Bonner Bridge opens sometime next week, once the lines are striped correctly. The official ribbon cutting ceremony is on April 2nd.

"Though the Bonner Bridge replacement is slated to open to vehicular traffic within a matter of days, a formal “grand opening”  and official ribbon cutting ceremony is set for April 2, with Governor Roy Cooper among the expected guests.

NCDOT Public Relations Officer Tim Haas told the Island Free Press late last week that the bridge will open once traffic lines are painted on the ramps that lead to the bridge structure itself.
“That’s the only thing we’re waiting on, and that should happen in the next few days, assuming the weather holds,”  he said."


https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/official-ribbon-cutting-for-new-bridge-set-for-april-2/
We don't know yet what the new bridge will be called; there's a movement to name it for Mark Basnight, the late state senator from Nags Head (he was a powerful figure in NC politics and pushed aggressively for the upgrading of US 64 to a freeway). It's pretty clear it won't be called the Bonner Bridge this time; Herbert C. Bonner was a US senator from 1940 to 1965 and a strong supporter of racial segregation.

It will start out posted as the Bonner bridge...

From Adam Prince's visit to Community Day:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/40164223573/in/album-72157678754899038/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 08:36:34 PM
We don't know yet what the new bridge will be called; there's a movement to name it for Mark Basnight, the late state senator from Nags Head (he was a powerful figure in NC politics and pushed aggressively for the upgrading of US 64 to a freeway). It's pretty clear it won't be called the Bonner Bridge this time; Herbert C. Bonner was a US senator from 1940 to 1965 and a strong supporter of racial segregation.
I'll still always refer to it as the Bonner Bridge. It's always been called that, and I see no real reason to rename it. But I guess everything has to be PC these days. If he was a strong supporter of racial segregation, then no shot.

Now, when you say US 64 to a freeway, are you referring to the 26 mile US 64 freeway relocation & 2-lane upgrade between Plymouth and Columbia built in 2006, or another, unbuilt segment?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 18, 2019, 08:46:57 PM
Correction - The Bonner Bridge opens sometime next week, once the lines are striped correctly. The official ribbon cutting ceremony is on April 2nd.

"Though the Bonner Bridge replacement is slated to open to vehicular traffic within a matter of days, a formal “grand opening”  and official ribbon cutting ceremony is set for April 2, with Governor Roy Cooper among the expected guests.

NCDOT Public Relations Officer Tim Haas told the Island Free Press late last week that the bridge will open once traffic lines are painted on the ramps that lead to the bridge structure itself.
“That’s the only thing we’re waiting on, and that should happen in the next few days, assuming the weather holds,”  he said."


https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/official-ribbon-cutting-for-new-bridge-set-for-april-2/
We don't know yet what the new bridge will be called; there's a movement to name it for Mark Basnight, the late state senator from Nags Head (he was a powerful figure in NC politics and pushed aggressively for the upgrading of US 64 to a freeway). It's pretty clear it won't be called the Bonner Bridge this time; Herbert C. Bonner was a US senator from 1940 to 1965 and a strong supporter of racial segregation.

NCDOT voted for Basnight naming per the N&O, truthfully the Oregon Inlet Bridge has a nice ring to it.  BTW, hi neighbor, live off of Highgate here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 18, 2019, 08:49:50 PM
We don't know yet what the new bridge will be called; there's a movement to name it for Mark Basnight, the late state senator from Nags Head (he was a powerful figure in NC politics and pushed aggressively for the upgrading of US 64 to a freeway). It's pretty clear it won't be called the Bonner Bridge this time; Herbert C. Bonner was a US senator from 1940 to 1965 and a strong supporter of racial segregation.
I'll still always refer to it as the Bonner Bridge. It's always been called that, and I see no real reason to rename it. But I guess everything has to be PC these days. If he was a strong supporter of racial segregation, then no shot.

Now, when you say US 64 to a freeway, are you referring to the 26 mile US 64 freeway relocation & 2-lane upgrade between Plymouth and Columbia built in 2006, or another, unbuilt segment?

He got sick of getting stuck in traffic driving to and from the General Assembly.  Eventually the remaining 2 lane section will get a 4 lane bypass from Columbia to Manns Harbor and the Dare Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 10:30:26 PM
He got sick of getting stuck in traffic driving to and from the General Assembly.
Reminds me of one of the governor candidates for VA a couple years back who wanted a US 58 interstate from Hampton Roads to Hillsville (where I-77 / US 58 meet). At least the US 64 proposal is way more realistic.

Eventually the remaining 2 lane section will get a 4 lane bypass from Columbia to Manns Harbor and the Dare Bridge.
I thought it was simply four-laning on existing. Not exactly anywhere to bypass it. I'd like to see the four-laning be built as a freeway, but there's not really a need, and only a couple of minor roads would intersect, all the homes would get relocated. What I don't support is the fact it's only proposed to be 55 MPH. Straight, wide open, divided highway, very little traffic, no private connections, and few intersections and having to hold 55 MPH is going to be a task. Should be allowable at 70 MPH, but that's only reserved for freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 18, 2019, 10:36:34 PM
Will NC post 65 mph on non-freeways, or do they top out at 60?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2019, 11:14:41 PM
Will NC post 65 mph on non-freeways, or do they top out at 60?
Right now, the maximum allowed is 60 MPH, and they seem to be restrictive with even that. I only know a few non-freeways with 60 MPH, US-17, NC-11, and US-117 are a few that come to mind. I think US-64 west of Raleigh may have it in some areas too, correct me if I'm wrong.

I could honestly could easily see 65 MPH on those roads, plus a lot more. Same applies here in Virginia. As long as visibility is decent, and traffic can safely flow that speed, I see no reason why not. Southern states have 65 MPH for the most part, on highways of the same design.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on February 19, 2019, 12:33:58 AM
US 64 west of Raleigh is 55 MPH all the way to Pittsboro, then on the Pittsboro bypass it goes to 65, then back down to 55 until Siler City.

This highway turns very rural once you get past the 540 Toll Road and could very easily handle 60+
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 19, 2019, 12:20:17 PM
He got sick of getting stuck in traffic driving to and from the General Assembly.
Reminds me of one of the governor candidates for VA a couple years back who wanted a US 58 interstate from Hampton Roads to Hillsville (where I-77 / US 58 meet). At least the US 64 proposal is way more realistic.

Frank Wagner. The only candidate that was serious about upgrading major non-interstate corridors outside of NoVA. I didn’t agree with him on everything, but hit the nail on the head where highway infrastructure is concerned. It was refreshing to hear a statewide candidate acknowledge that rural VA exists.

But I digress...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 19, 2019, 05:04:43 PM
US 64 west of Raleigh is 55 MPH all the way to Pittsboro, then on the Pittsboro bypass it goes to 65, then back down to 55 until Siler City.

This highway turns very rural once you get past the 540 Toll Road and could very easily handle 60+
The Pittsboro Bypass is freeway, so they posted that at 65 MPH. The rest should be 60 MPH, reasonably 65 MPH, but staying within state law, 60 MPH. IMHO, from Laura Duncan Rd heading west it could start 60 MPH. That portion inside the beltway is mainly freeway with a couple intersections with right in / right out, and r-cut.

I almost drove that stretch between Raleigh and Asheboro on a trip to Asheboro last year, but then decided to go the slightly longer distance (5 mins slower, 10 additional miles) by hitting I-85 at South Hill to I-73 as opposed to I-95 at Emporia to US 64 because of the fact it was way more interstate (about 60 miles of at-grade between Raleigh and Asheboro) besides the extra 30 miles on US 58, and also it was night, and I was familiar with US 58 as opposed to never driven US 64. Driving back to Raleigh, I took a long detour to clinch the new I-73 north of Greensboro up to Stokesdale, then back down to I-40 to Raleigh. Still need to get US 64 one day...

Frank Wagner. The only candidate that was serious about upgrading major non-interstate corridors outside of NoVA. I didn’t agree with him on everything, but hit the nail on the head where highway infrastructure is concerned. It was refreshing to hear a statewide candidate acknowledge that rural VA exists.

But I digress...
Only issue is funding and is it even reasonable. US 58 beyond South Hill is very empty. I drove it back in December, and easily cruised 70 MPH between South Hill and Martinsville (over 100 miles) with very little traffic (saw a semi with port containers here and there, and the occasional car). I just couldn't see billions of dollars being poured into that to make it a freeway. West of Martinsville, it's as little 2,000 AADT! I would've loved to see a push to get I-73 built, a US 29 freeway to at least Lynchburg, or a US 58 freeway from Norfolk to Emporia or South Hill. Realistic, and reasonable proposals.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 20, 2019, 07:05:19 AM
US 64 west of Raleigh is 55 MPH all the way to Pittsboro, then on the Pittsboro bypass it goes to 65, then back down to 55 until Siler City.

This highway turns very rural once you get past the 540 Toll Road and could very easily handle 60+
The Pittsboro Bypass is freeway, so they posted that at 65 MPH. The rest should be 60 MPH, reasonably 65 MPH, but staying within state law, 60 MPH. IMHO, from Laura Duncan Rd heading west it could start 60 MPH. That portion inside the beltway is mainly freeway with a couple intersections with right in / right out, and r-cut.

I almost drove that stretch between Raleigh and Asheboro on a trip to Asheboro last year, but then decided to go the slightly longer distance (5 mins slower, 10 additional miles) by hitting I-85 at South Hill to I-73 as opposed to I-95 at Emporia to US 64 because of the fact it was way more interstate (about 60 miles of at-grade between Raleigh and Asheboro) besides the extra 30 miles on US 58, and also it was night, and I was familiar with US 58 as opposed to never driven US 64. Driving back to Raleigh, I took a long detour to clinch the new I-73 north of Greensboro up to Stokesdale, then back down to I-40 to Raleigh. Still need to get US 64 one day...

Frank Wagner. The only candidate that was serious about upgrading major non-interstate corridors outside of NoVA. I didn’t agree with him on everything, but hit the nail on the head where highway infrastructure is concerned. It was refreshing to hear a statewide candidate acknowledge that rural VA exists.

But I digress...
Only issue is funding and is it even reasonable. US 58 beyond South Hill is very empty. I drove it back in December, and easily cruised 70 MPH between South Hill and Martinsville (over 100 miles) with very little traffic (saw a semi with port containers here and there, and the occasional car). I just couldn't see billions of dollars being poured into that to make it a freeway. West of Martinsville, it's as little 2,000 AADT! I would've loved to see a push to get I-73 built, a US 29 freeway to at least Lynchburg, or a US 58 freeway from Norfolk to Emporia or South Hill. Realistic, and reasonable proposals.

Going to disagree a bit on the US 64, limit of 60 mph, that would have to start at minimum west of NC 540 Toll, too much congestion and developement between US 1 and Apex on 64.  Also have clinched the stretch from US 1 to I-73/74 multiple times, decent drive but, way too many lights and speed traps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 20, 2019, 12:41:10 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-20-pitt-county-highway-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-20-pitt-county-highway-closure.aspx)

Quote
A Pitt County road will close to traffic later this month as work continues in connecting old and new sections of N.C. 11.

Contractors with the N.C. Department of Transportation will close both lanes of Lee Street in Ayden starting Feb. 25. This closure, about a month and a half long, will allow crews to grade and pave the newly constructed road, plus tie it in with the older section of road.

Once this work, which is part of the Southwest Bypass project, is finished, traffic will enter N.C. 11 at a different location, approximately a quarter-of-a-mile south of the existing intersection.

Because both lanes will be closed, traffic on N.C. 11 and Lee Street will be rerouted onto West 3rd Street. Drivers should anticipate additional time being added to their commute and staying alert to crews working in the area.

For real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on social media.​
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 20, 2019, 05:56:13 PM
Going to disagree a bit on the US 64, limit of 60 mph, that would have to start at minimum west of NC 540 Toll, too much congestion and developement between US 1 and Apex on 64.  Also have clinched the stretch from US 1 to I-73/74 multiple times, decent drive but, way too many lights and speed traps.
After the Laura Duncan Rd traffic signal, it's essentially a freeway with one R-CUT, and a few right in right out. IMHO it could easily handle 60 MPH where there's no signals, but I could be wrong.

There's 20 signals on US 64 between Laura Duncan Rd and the Future US 64 Bypass. Most of those are between the U.S. 421 freeway and Future U.S. 64 Bypass. There's a 20 mile stretch without signals that could be 60 MPH. There's areas where there's 3 or 4 miles between signals, and it could decrease to 55 MPH at the signal, then back to 60 MPH. That practice is used many places, including here in Virginia (shockingly). I recall one divided highway in Florida I drove last year that was 65 MPH, and decreased multiple times to 55 MPH for signals, then kept increasing to 65 MPH. I don't remember which highway exactly though.

Here's a concept showing where US 64 could be 60 MPH (or higher if state law were to allow). Green indicate traffic signals, and red zones are the areas I could see 60 or higher.
(https://i.ibb.co/LvgMrgY/US-64-60-MPH.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 21, 2019, 06:25:47 AM
Going to disagree a bit on the US 64, limit of 60 mph, that would have to start at minimum west of NC 540 Toll, too much congestion and developement between US 1 and Apex on 64.  Also have clinched the stretch from US 1 to I-73/74 multiple times, decent drive but, way too many lights and speed traps.
After the Laura Duncan Rd traffic signal, it's essentially a freeway with one R-CUT, and a few right in right out. IMHO it could easily handle 60 MPH where there's no signals, but I could be wrong.

There's 20 signals on US 64 between Laura Duncan Rd and the Future US 64 Bypass. Most of those are between the U.S. 421 freeway and Future U.S. 64 Bypass. There's a 20 mile stretch without signals that could be 60 MPH. There's areas where there's 3 or 4 miles between signals, and it could decrease to 55 MPH at the signal, then back to 60 MPH. That practice is used many places, including here in Virginia (shockingly). I recall one divided highway in Florida I drove last year that was 65 MPH, and decreased multiple times to 55 MPH for signals, then kept increasing to 65 MPH. I don't remember which highway exactly though.

Here's a concept showing where US 64 could be 60 MPH (or higher if state law were to allow). Green indicate traffic signals, and red zones are the areas I could see 60 or higher.
(https://i.ibb.co/LvgMrgY/US-64-60-MPH.png)

Yeah, still like my plan better, will be driving it this weekend, my Jeep dealer is AutoPark Chrysler Jeep in Cary, regular service, there is way too much development in that area, after 540 it becomes a rural arterial route like 58 between Emporia and South Hill or US 1 north of Wake Forest.  Next would be Siler City.  People do drive at 70 on there in the rural area but, they'll get caught eventually either by Local PD or NCSHP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 07:41:53 AM
it becomes a rural arterial route like 58 between Emporia and South Hill. 
I've always thought US 58 between Emporia and South Hill was interesting. 55 MPH. I thought, okay, it's somewhat hilly, and the lanes are a little narrow, so this is the appropriate speed. I learned last year that beyond I-85 & South Hill, the speed limit goes back up to 60 MPH. It's modern wide, full shoulder, etc. highway for a while, and then it goes back to hilly and narrow, and continues to hold 60 MPH.

US 58 between Danville and Martinsville is extremely narrow and hilly (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6263144,-79.6386241,3a,55.4y,299.9h,86.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDSRON_pfiniUkmvJPBA7Ww!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)and again, holds 60 MPH. There's a few traffic signals where it drops to 55 MPH then back to 60 MPH.

I would honestly understand if that section was 55 MPH, it's reasonable. 60 MPH is a bit fast on that, especially when you're driving with a semi in the right lane (or attempting to stay in the right lane, or stay on the road around a corner).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 21, 2019, 05:32:52 PM
Way too many homes, businesses and driveways on that stretch of 64 to ever see anything higher than 55 mph, even in the rural parts. The 60 mph sections of 17 in Brunswick have no driveways and very limited intersections.

You're talking about saving two minutes over 20 miles. It seems like 10 over is the new 5 over anyway. Push it up to 60 and people will be going 70 while mee-maw is pulling the Buick out across two lanes to go 100 yards down the road to her niece's house (never getting above 35 and no turn signals) to give her some apple butter and fuss about all the speed demons and everyone being in such a hurry these days.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 05:44:49 PM
Way too many homes, businesses and driveways on that stretch of 64 to ever see anything higher than 55 mph, even in the rural parts. The 60 mph sections of 17 in Brunswick have no driveways and very limited intersections.

You're talking about saving two minutes over 20 miles. It seems like 10 over is the new 5 over anyway. Push it up to 60 and people will be going 70 while mee-maw is pulling the Buick out across two lanes to go 100 yards down the road to her niece's house (never getting above 35 and no turn signals) to give her some apple butter and fuss about all the speed demons and everyone being in such a hurry these days.
See my previous example about U.S. 58. Blind intersections, driveways, etc. Nothing stopped it from being 60 MPH. Most of US 58 in Virginia is 60 MPH, and has driveways everywhere. Majority of four-lane divided roadways in the south hold 65 MPH speed limits. Go to Texas, this road would easily be 75 MPH. Two-lane country roads there are 75 MPH, and when someone pulls out, you gotta slow the hell down. I was cruising down at 80 MPH on a two-lane with farms on either side, and a big tractor pulled out, slowing me down to about 15 MPH. I sat behind it for about 5 minutes until I could safely pass. It's not a reason to hold the speed limit to a low standard. Most rural non-limited-access highways could easily handle 65 MPH up here in VA and NC. And no, if you set it 65 MPH, not everybody will do 80 MPH. The majority of the drivers do around 70 MPH presently, because it's a comfortable speed. Setting the speed limit to meet the speed of most drivers, 65 MPH, will allow people to legally do a comfortable and safe speed. Another thing - there's a 15 MPH difference between the comfortable speed driver, and the speed limit obeyer. A 65 MPH limit would lower the difference to about 5 MPH mostly, and actually make conditions safer.

You'll always get the occasional person pull out doing 35 MPH, on any rural roadway. Should the speed limit be 35 MPH?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 21, 2019, 06:31:04 PM
Way too many homes, businesses and driveways on that stretch of 64 to ever see anything higher than 55 mph, even in the rural parts. The 60 mph sections of 17 in Brunswick have no driveways and very limited intersections.

You're talking about saving two minutes over 20 miles. It seems like 10 over is the new 5 over anyway. Push it up to 60 and people will be going 70 while mee-maw is pulling the Buick out across two lanes to go 100 yards down the road to her niece's house (never getting above 35 and no turn signals) to give her some apple butter and fuss about all the speed demons and everyone being in such a hurry these days.
See my previous example about U.S. 58. Blind intersections, driveways, etc. Nothing stopped it from being 60 MPH. Most of US 58 in Virginia is 60 MPH, and has driveways everywhere. Majority of four-lane divided roadways in the south hold 65 MPH speed limits. Go to Texas, this road would easily be 75 MPH. Two-lane country roads there are 75 MPH, and when someone pulls out, you gotta slow the hell down. I was cruising down at 80 MPH on a two-lane with farms on either side, and a big tractor pulled out, slowing me down to about 15 MPH. I sat behind it for about 5 minutes until I could safely pass. It's not a reason to hold the speed limit to a low standard. Most rural non-limited-access highways could easily handle 65 MPH up here in VA and NC. And no, if you set it 65 MPH, not everybody will do 80 MPH. The majority of the drivers do around 70 MPH presently, because it's a comfortable speed. Setting the speed limit to meet the speed of most drivers, 65 MPH, will allow people to legally do a comfortable and safe speed. Another thing - there's a 15 MPH difference between the comfortable speed driver, and the speed limit obeyer. A 65 MPH limit would lower the difference to about 5 MPH mostly, and actually make conditions safer.

You'll always get the occasional person pull out doing 35 MPH, on any rural roadway. Should the speed limit be 35 MPH?

Yeah, looks really safe (https://goo.gl/maps/pAYpfbPDpd42). Go to a random section with driveways and there are skid marks everywhere...

Send the Division 8 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/dot/directory/authenticated/UnitPage.aspx?id=647) traffic engineer an e-mail asking why the speed limit isn't 60 or 65 mph on 64 and let us know the response.

If I ever get pulled over for speeding, I'll have to remember to tell the Trooper that I was "going a comfortable speed."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2019, 06:50:25 PM
Yeah, looks really safe (https://goo.gl/maps/pAYpfbPDpd42). Go to a random section with driveways and there are skid marks everywhere...
Yes, because the road being 60 MPH as opposed to 55 MPH caused this. I've driven this stretch all the time, there's nothing wrong with a 60 MPH speed limit. The average speed here is around 67 MPH in my experience, this stretch in particular is well designed - 12 foot travel lanes, and paved shoulders.

Look at the extremely narrow, hilly stretch I linked above between Martinsville and Danville. I think 60 MPH is a bit excessive there, but nonetheless, it's posted that, and that stretch is way more dangerous than US 64.

Send the Division 8 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/dot/directory/authenticated/UnitPage.aspx?id=647) traffic engineer an e-mail asking why the speed limit isn't 60 or 65 mph on 64 and let us know the response.
North Carolina as a state is stricter in general with setting speed limits. For the most part, 60 MPH is used in areas with few driveways. It's not a practice of NCDOT to post 60 MPH on roads like this, but it's certainly reasonable if they do. Virginia posts 60 MPH on most four-lane non-limited-access divided highways across the state. 65 MPH is not allowed on non-limited-access highways per state code in both Virginia and North Carolina, so that's out of the question.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on February 22, 2019, 03:00:33 AM
Yeah, looks really safe (https://goo.gl/maps/pAYpfbPDpd42). Go to a random section with driveways and there are skid marks everywhere...
Yes, because the road being 60 MPH as opposed to 55 MPH caused this. I've driven this stretch all the time, there's nothing wrong with a 60 MPH speed limit. The average speed here is around 67 MPH in my experience, this stretch in particular is well designed - 12 foot travel lanes, and paved shoulders.

Look at the extremely narrow, hilly stretch I linked above between Martinsville and Danville. I think 60 MPH is a bit excessive there, but nonetheless, it's posted that, and that stretch is way more dangerous than US 64.

Send the Division 8 (https://apps.ncdot.gov/dot/directory/authenticated/UnitPage.aspx?id=647) traffic engineer an e-mail asking why the speed limit isn't 60 or 65 mph on 64 and let us know the response.
North Carolina as a state is stricter in general with setting speed limits. For the most part, 60 MPH is used in areas with few driveways. It's not a practice of NCDOT to post 60 MPH on roads like this, but it's certainly reasonable if they do. Virginia posts 60 MPH on most four-lane non-limited-access divided highways across the state. 65 MPH is not allowed on non-limited-access highways per state code in both Virginia and North Carolina, so that's out of the question.

I agree with you in principle, but the default rural speed limit is still only 55 MPH in NC with exceptions to that laid out in §GS 20-141(d)(2). It specifically mentions Interstate Highways or "....any part of a controlled-access highway...." (etc etc)-they may be posted as high as 70 MPH.
Unfortunately the example provided by cowboy_wilhelm isn't an access controlled highway, so statutorily NCDOT wouldn't be able post it any higher than 55 mph had his VA example been in NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 22, 2019, 12:56:48 PM
US-117 in my old stomping grounds is finally getting some much needed TLC.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-22-smoother-roads-coming-wayne-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-22-smoother-roads-coming-wayne-county.aspx)

Quote
More than 30 miles of roadways in Wayne County will be resurfaced this year after the N.C. Department of Transportation awarded two contracts.

Segments of N.C. 222 near the Johnston County line, N.C. 581 around the U.S. 70 Bypass, and U.S. 117 Alternate near Fremont and Pikeville are the primary routes to be refreshed.

S.T. Wooten Corp. of Wilson earned the contract to repave 15.6 miles for $2.5 million.

Barnhill Contracting Co., of Rocky Mount won a contract for $1.9 mill to resurface 16 miles of secondary routes in Wayne County.

Both contractors may begin in March, and the contract calls for completion by the end of the year.

Not sure why NCDOT calls it “Alternate” . That was dropped 10 years ago when US-117 was put back on it’s original alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2019, 05:02:42 PM
Not sure why NCDOT calls it “Alternate” . That was dropped 10 years ago when US-117 was put back on it’s original alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson...
Someone probably looked at Google Maps and saw "U.S. 117 Alternate", so they put it in there.

I agree with you in principle, but the default rural speed limit is still only 55 MPH in NC with exceptions to that laid out in §GS 20-141(d)(2). It specifically mentions Interstate Highways or "....any part of a controlled-access highway...." (etc etc)-they may be posted as high as 70 MPH.
Unfortunately the example provided by cowboy_wilhelm isn't an access controlled highway, so statutorily NCDOT wouldn't be able post it any higher than 55 mph had his VA example been in NC.

I think if this part of NC-11 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4135084,-77.4347004,3a,41.3y,4.99h,87.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssNIC3cFx8qrqCWJlOkaqAg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) can have 60 MPH, then US 64 could have 60 MPH.

Whatever that code is clearly isn't applied with all the 60 MPH non-limited-access highways in the state. There's errors in that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 23, 2019, 08:36:10 AM
Here's a video showing the construction sequence for the upcoming rebuild of the Green River bridges on I-26 in Henderson County.

https://vimeo.com/311545959 (https://vimeo.com/311545959)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 23, 2019, 05:20:49 PM
Another rock slide has closed I-40 near the TN border for a week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 23, 2019, 08:38:38 PM
Another rock slide has closed I-40 near the TN border for a week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx)

Nothin’ a broom and dustpan can’t fix. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 23, 2019, 09:48:53 PM
Was NC 210 rerouted in the Fayetteville area? It's always been signed as coming down Murchison Road and turning east on Rowan Street to follow NC 24. However, the signage plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2016%20Highway%20Letting/09-20-16/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Cumberland%20B4490%20C203659/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for the bridge replacement project (the one that realigns Bragg Blvd, Murchison Road, and Rowan Street into a single intersection) feature NC 24 signed as normal, but no direct signage for NC 210. Murchison Road to the north is signed "To NC 210" from the other three legs of the intersection. NC 210 is still signed everywhere else as of the latest Street View from last fall and there aren't any route changes (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Route-Changes.aspx) proposed for it, nor have any been approved since 1988. Does anyone know what the deal is here?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 24, 2019, 06:52:24 AM
Another rock slide has closed I-40 near the TN border for a week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx)

Nothin’ a broom and dustpan can’t fix. :spin:

LOL!!!!!  That's going to be a big broom, :D.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 25, 2019, 03:02:37 PM
The new Bonner Bridge opened today.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2019, 06:37:28 PM
Was NC 210 rerouted in the Fayetteville area? It's always been signed as coming down Murchison Road and turning east on Rowan Street to follow NC 24. However, the signage plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2016%20Highway%20Letting/09-20-16/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Cumberland%20B4490%20C203659/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for the bridge replacement project (the one that realigns Bragg Blvd, Murchison Road, and Rowan Street into a single intersection) feature NC 24 signed as normal, but no direct signage for NC 210. Murchison Road to the north is signed "To NC 210" from the other three legs of the intersection. NC 210 is still signed everywhere else as of the latest Street View from last fall and there aren't any route changes (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Pages/Route-Changes.aspx) proposed for it, nor have any been approved since 1988. Does anyone know what the deal is here?
This is odd because there's no alternate routing that makes any sense. Perhaps it's just an error.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2019, 06:41:12 PM
The new Bonner Bridge opened today.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-bonner-bridge-replacement.aspx)
"With the new bridge open, demolition of the old bridge will begin soon, and is scheduled to be complete by the end of the year. A 1,000-foot section of the south end of the old bridge will remain in place as a pedestrian walkway."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on February 25, 2019, 09:56:08 PM
http://unioncountyweekly.com/news/2019/02/state-seeks-comments-on-indian-trail-road-projects/


Quote
INDIAN TRAIL — The Town of Indian Trail is encouraging residents to provide input to the N.C. Department of Transportation on funding road projects scheduled for 2020 to 2029.


A handful of Indian Trail projects are on the list:


- Old Monroe Road/Old Charlotte Highway widening throughout Indian Trail ($38.1 million).


- Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road widening to four lanes from U.S. 74 to Rogers Road ($31.9 million).


- Bridge over the railroad tracks on Wesley Chapel-Stouts Road ($10 million).


- Price Mill Creek Greenway between Old Monroe Road and Garden Oak Drive ($3.15 million).


- Bicycle lanes along Brandon Oaks Drive and neighborhood sidewalk connections from Beacon Hills to nearby attractions ($262,500).


“We hope our residents will take advantage of this opportunity to let NCDOT know how vital these projects would be for our community,”  Communications Director Mike Parks said. “Town officials are always working closely with our partners with the state to make sure our transportation needs are being met, and our residents speaking up about their needs will help strengthen our push to bring more projects to Indian Trail.”


Residents can reach out to NCDOT from Feb. 25 to March 1. They will be able to learn more about the projects and make comments at the NCDOT office in Albemarle (716 W. Main St.). They also can provide comments online through April 15 at https://publicinput.com/2020-2029-STIP.


The plan will be considered for final approval this summer, according to NCDOT.


I welcome the widening projects proposed for my area with open arms, I believe they're badly needed. What I oppose is replacing the railroad crossing with a bridge, the crossing we have over there really doesn't do much in terms of generating traffic and it'd ultimately be a waste.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 25, 2019, 10:12:41 PM
^ Did you consider that the rail crossing bridge may not be because of traffic on Wesley Chapel-Stouts Rd but instead because of rail traffic on the CSX Mainline through town?  It's the main CSX line to the port at Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2019, 10:26:31 PM
^ Did you consider that the rail crossing bridge may not be because of traffic on Wesley Chapel-Stouts Rd but instead because of rail traffic on the CSX Mainline through town?  It's the main CSX line to the port at Wilmington.
Agreed. Replacing at-grade crossings with grade-separation provides better flow of rail traffic as well as vehicular traffic. One local example from Hampton Roads was relocating the railroad in the median of I-664 and VA-164 for VIG, as opposed to the surface route if followed with numerous of crossings. That was a huge improvement for local traffic, and rail traffic, and opened up a new public trail for pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 25, 2019, 10:52:12 PM
When will there be meeting for comments in the Unifour area?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on February 25, 2019, 11:34:39 PM
^ Did you consider that the rail crossing bridge may not be because of traffic on Wesley Chapel-Stouts Rd but instead because of rail traffic on the CSX Mainline through town?  It's the main CSX line to the port at Wilmington.


Oop. That actually makes a lot more sense now that I think of it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2019, 09:15:29 AM
Project update on the Business 40 rebuild in Winston-Salem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-forsyth-business-40-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-forsyth-business-40-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 26, 2019, 09:16:57 AM
Project update on the Business 40 rebuild in Winston-Salem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-forsyth-business-40-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-25-forsyth-business-40-project.aspx)

Let's see how long after the reopening they'll still call it Business 40 on public materials. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2019, 01:43:27 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-26-johnston-county-roads-repaving-contract.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-26-johnston-county-roads-repaving-contract.aspx)

Quote
More than 40 miles of roadway in Johnston County will get a fresh surface and new lane markings, under a new contract approved this month by the N.C. Department of Transportation.

The work will affect 20.5 miles of the following three state highways in the county:

N.C. 39 between U.S. 301 in Selma and the roundabout at N.C. 42
N.C. 222 between the Wayne County line and N.C. 42
N.C. 50 between Fayetteville Street and U.S. 301

Additionally, six secondary routes will be resurfaced:

Hanna Creek Road
Go Cart Road
Thunder Road
Battlefield Road
Benson Hardee Road
Barber Mill Road

A total 44 miles will be repaved under the contract awarded to Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh for almost $3.4 million. The contract starts in April and is scheduled to end in July 2020.

This is one of 21 major highway and bridge projects awarded this month by the NCDOT. Per state law they went to the lowest bidder among qualified contractors. They are worth $331.5 million, more than $57 million under engineer estimates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2019, 05:38:10 PM
A contract was awarded for improving the whole length of I-40 in Sampson County. Construction to begin in April and set for completion in fall 2020.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-26-contract-awarded-improvements-interstate-sampson.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-26-contract-awarded-improvements-interstate-sampson.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 27, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-17 Business (Market Street) in New Hanover County between Middle Sound Loop Road and Marsh Oaks Drive. Construction can begin in April and completion is set for May 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-27-new-hanover-market-street-project-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-27-new-hanover-market-street-project-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 27, 2019, 04:57:42 PM
US-17 Business (Market Street)

Has all the signage for the rerouted US 17 (and thus truncated US 17 Business) been updated yet, or is there still some to go? Officially this stretch is US 17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2019, 03:51:55 PM
Another rock slide has closed I-40 near the TN border for a week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx)

I-40 has reopened, though it’s currently only one lane each way.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 05, 2019, 11:53:01 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-05-section-jones-county-bypass-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-05-section-jones-county-bypass-opening.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE — A new section of a Jones County highway bypass will open this week and traffic will be detoured as the final portion of the bypass is completed.

On Wednesday, crews with the N.C. Department of Transportation will open a new, 2.5-mile section of the U.S. 17 Bypass. This new section of the bypass is about 90 percent complete.

NCDOT expects traffic will be able to drive the full length of the U.S. 17 Bypass by late this year, with the project being completed in 2020. The bypass will include a four-lane divided road that will connect U.S. 17 north of Spring Hill Road in Onslow County, and then reconnect to the U.S. 17 Bypass southwest of New Bern.

When the new section opens this week, traffic will be detoured. Northbound traffic will go onto the interchange at N.C. 58. At the bottom of the ramp, drivers will turn left onto the highway and proceed to the stop sign and flashing red light at U.S. 17. Drivers will turn left onto U.S. 17.

Drivers on U.S. 17 south will turn right onto N.C. 58 and enter back onto the U.S. 17 Bypass using the ramp designated for U.S. 17 south.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time to learn the new traffic pattern, and slow down and use caution while near the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 05, 2019, 12:54:11 PM
^ Is there a map of this leg somewhere?  Will it be controlled-access?  The press release suggests there'll be an interchange at NC 58.  Also presuming from the press release that it'll tie directly into the newer bypass leg that extends up to US 70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on March 05, 2019, 01:11:56 PM
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/pre/files/styles/x_large/public/201312/R-2514-PrefAltMap-6-21-2010-page-001_0.jpg)
Not a freeway, but presumably access will be controlled to the few intersections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 05, 2019, 01:56:31 PM
^ Is there a map of this leg somewhere?  Will it be controlled-access?  The press release suggests there'll be an interchange at NC 58.  Also presuming from the press release that it'll tie directly into the newer bypass leg that extends up to US 70.

Only part of the project will be controlled access with a 70mph speed limit.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2015/NCDOT-Awards-Contract-for-US-17-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2015/NCDOT-Awards-Contract-for-US-17-widening.aspx)

Quote
The projects will run from the U.S. 17 New Bern Bypass, on the north end, to 300 feet north of Deppe Loop Road/Springhill Road, south of Belgrade, on the south end. Once completed, the U.S. 17 widening projects will yield significant safety improvements by bringing the corridor up to modern standards, providing motorists with a four-lane divided highway with speed limits of 70 mph from the U.S 17 New Bern Bypass to just south of N.C. 58, and a speed limit of 60 mph from just south of N.C. 58 to Deppe Loop Road in Maysville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Chris on March 05, 2019, 03:21:38 PM
Judging by September 2018 imagery in Google Earth, the bypass will be a freeway standard road north of NC 58 (at Pollocksville) and a standard four lane divided highway south of it. There are a couple of cross roads that have no bridges and you can see U-turns, as well as driveway access on the section farther south where it is expanded on its existing alignment.

(https://i.imgur.com/GD3Nuhi.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 05, 2019, 04:46:55 PM
All the new location construction is limited-access freeway, while the widened portion was simply given a parallel roadway, and modifications to the existing roadway. Judging by the looks of it, the partial control-of-access widening could be converted into freeway in the future if warranted by simply building another parallel roadway to the newly built one, and converting the old one into 2-way. IMHO, it should've been done like this from this project to create a continuous freeway from U.S. 70 / Interstate 42 to south of Maysville. A good chunk of U.S. 64 west of the Outer Banks was two-lane roadway, and instead of widening it to a four-lane divided highway by building parallel roadway, they constructed two parallel roadways, left the existing road in place, and the new roadway became a 70 MPH limited-access freeway with overpasses & interchanges when it opened in 2005.

The speed limit will likely be 65 MPH on the freeway, and 55 MPH on the divided highway. The speed limit of 70 MPH and 60 MPH suggested comes from the design speed of the project. Usually the speed limit is posted lower. For example, if a freeway is built to 70 MPH design speed, it's posted at 65 MPH. If it's a 75 MPH design speed, it's posted at 70 MPH.

I do agree though that it should be 70 MPH on the freeway, and 60 MPH on the divided, and may actually end up like that. Who knows until it opens, or if anybody has physically seen a speed limit sign on the un-opened freeway and can confirm this.

---------------------------

It's important to note that the only section of the bypass opening this week is from the southern end heading two miles to the NC 58 interchange, so the tie in at the southern end can be constructed. The bypass will likely only be 2 lanes for the time being, similar to the Maysville bypass alignment that opened last year. Traffic will still have to go onto NC 58 then to US 17 still through downtown Pollocksville. The remaining 6 miles of the roadway, and the four-laning will be done later this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 05, 2019, 07:31:23 PM
All the new location construction is limited-access freeway, while the widened portion was simply given a parallel roadway, and modifications to the existing roadway. Judging by the looks of it, the partial control-of-access widening could be converted into freeway in the future if warranted by simply building another parallel roadway to the newly built one, and converting the old one into 2-way. IMHO, it should've been done like this from this project to create a continuous freeway from U.S. 70 / Interstate 42 to south of Maysville. A good chunk of U.S. 64 west of the Outer Banks was two-lane roadway, and instead of widening it to a four-lane divided highway by building parallel roadway, they constructed two parallel roadways, left the existing road in place, and the new roadway became a 70 MPH limited-access freeway with overpasses & interchanges when it opened in 2005.
Jacksonville has begun agitating for an interstate connection, so a further upgrade could well be in the future.
https://www.jdnews.com/news/20180218/jacksonville-could-see-interstate-access-soon
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 05, 2019, 07:50:39 PM
Jacksonville has begun agitating for an interstate connection, so a further upgrade could well be in the future.

Demoniacal unrest.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 05, 2019, 08:53:36 PM
Jacksonville has begun agitating for an interstate connection, so a further upgrade could well be in the future.
That was last year in Feb. 2018. No talks since, but it could happen in the future. Read below.

Demoniacal unrest.
It's could well happen in fact in the future. Jacksonville is a decent sized city with a population around 70,000, and Onslow County has a population near 200,000. Jacksonville also has 2 decent-sized military establishments that lack interstate connections.

Once I-42 is completed, it will only be 27 miles from it via US 17. Once the Maysville & Pollocksville bypasses and widening in between is completed in 2020, all of that would be four-lanes, and about 17 miles freeway. The section between the bypasses could be upgraded to interstate standards in the method I suggested above, building another parallel roadway, and converting the southbound lanes (the original roadway) back into a two-lane configuration. That would make 20 miles of 27 miles interstate standards. The remainder of the 7 miles is four-lanes non-controlled-access, though does not have much in the way of development off the roadway (few homes, few businesses, etc) and could be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards. Once you enter the urban area, such an interstate could transition back into the 4-lane development lined US 17. This could become an I-X42. It could likely be done for around $200 million considering only about 10 miles would need upgrades, no new alignments, and few relocations required.

---

Not to mention, U.S. 17 is listed in North Carolina's long-range plan as being upgraded to freeway throughout the entire state (then again essentially every road is). A corridor between Norfolk and Wilmington could be a concept too. Freeway connection between Myrtle Beach and Wilmington is already being planned under the Carolina Bays Pkwy extension.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on March 06, 2019, 02:03:02 AM
Jacksonville has begun agitating for an interstate connection, so a further upgrade could well be in the future.
That was last year in Feb. 2018. No talks since, but it could happen in the future. Read below.

Demoniacal unrest.
It's could well happen in fact in the future. Jacksonville is a decent sized city with a population around 70,000, and Onslow County has a population near 200,000. Jacksonville also has 2 decent-sized military establishments that lack interstate connections.

Once I-42 is completed, it will only be 27 miles from it via US 17. Once the Maysville & Pollocksville bypasses and widening in between is completed in 2020, all of that would be four-lanes, and about 17 miles freeway. The section between the bypasses could be upgraded to interstate standards in the method I suggested above, building another parallel roadway, and converting the southbound lanes (the original roadway) back into a two-lane configuration. That would make 20 miles of 27 miles interstate standards. The remainder of the 7 miles is four-lanes non-controlled-access, though does not have much in the way of development off the roadway (few homes, few businesses, etc) and could be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards. Once you enter the urban area, such an interstate could transition back into the 4-lane development lined US 17. This could become an I-X42. It could likely be done for around $200 million considering only about 10 miles would need upgrades, no new alignments, and few relocations required.

---

Not to mention, U.S. 17 is listed in North Carolina's long-range plan as being upgraded to freeway throughout the entire state (then again essentially every road is). A corridor between Norfolk and Wilmington could be a concept too. Freeway connection between Myrtle Beach and Wilmington is already being planned under the Carolina Bays Pkwy extension.

Rather than an x42 3di number, it's likely that NCDOT (and its political handlers) will hold off on any Interstate designation for the US 17 corridor between Wilmington and Williamston until such time as most if not all of the route is programmed for upgrades to at least a standard that's further upgradeable to full Interstate criteria (i.e., 4 lanes divided to Interstate-standard geometrics and with private access eliminated).  At that time, they'll probably select a quasi-appropriate odd (hopefully) 2di -- or even the oft bandied-about "I-101" designation as a delineation of an eastern seaboard route.  They'll probably use the now-standard legislative mechanism of outlining a new national high priority corridor, tacking on an Interstate designation, and getting one or more members of their congressional delegation to slip it into the yearly funding bill.  Bada bing, bada boom -- they'll have their N-S "coastal" Interstate, and will proceed to erect signage on those sections passing muster and "future" BGS's on those sections yet to be completed.  But this probably won't occur until NCDOT has the completion of the US 17/I-87 corridor in its sights. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2019, 01:41:33 PM
A freeway-upgraded US-17 from I-95 up through Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Jacksonville and on up to the Norfolk area would have been a good candidate for I-99. If the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel could be connected to the Interstates there then it would be possible to extend that concept of I-99 up to the Wilmington, DE area.

I wouldn't be opposed to an "I-101" designation either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 06, 2019, 04:30:40 PM
A freeway-upgraded US-17 from I-95 up through Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Jacksonville and on up to the Norfolk area would have been a good candidate for I-99. If the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel could be connected to the Interstates there then it would be possible to extend that concept of I-99 up to the Wilmington, DE area.

I wouldn't be opposed to an "I-101" designation either.

And was studied for that exact outcome...nobody had any serious interest

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf

amazing how much different NC seems to be viewing all this a decade later...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on March 06, 2019, 04:48:19 PM
A freeway-upgraded US-17 from I-95 up through Charleston, Myrtle Beach, Wilmington, Jacksonville and on up to the Norfolk area would have been a good candidate for I-99. If the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel could be connected to the Interstates there then it would be possible to extend that concept of I-99 up to the Wilmington, DE area.

I wouldn't be opposed to an "I-101" designation either.

And was studied for that exact outcome...nobody had any serious interest

http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf

amazing how much different NC seems to be viewing all this a decade later...

And -- if eventually an I-designation is sought for the remainder of NC's US 17 -- such a "shoreline" corridor might be an impetus for getting rid of the god-awful "I-87" concept, subsuming the US 17 portion of that corridor with the number selected for the portion south of Williamston and placing an appropriate even 2di on the E-W US 64 section.  If I may be so bold, a (slightly) southern I-97 might be the most appropriate of all the possibilities -- while there's only a slight, slight chance it will ever connect to the existing I-97, that's one hell of a lot better than the chances of connecting with NY's I-87!!!   Hell, it's NC -- where "improbable" doesn't seem to exist. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 06, 2019, 05:19:40 PM
Of all the future interstates in eastern NC, I’m more eager for I-42 and I-795 to be completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 05:21:40 PM
I think we're getting way to fantasy and fictional here. Currently on the official plans is to upgrade U.S. 17 between Virginia and Williamston (80 miles) to interstate standards, that's it. If Virginia links I-87 to I-64 in Chesapeake, VA, that's an additional 14 miles of upgrades to limited-access highway, and 3 miles of interstate-standard freeway (the 2016 Dominion Blvd upgrade) already exists to I-64.

From Williamston to Wilmington, it was on a plan over a decade ago that fantasized every highway in the state essentially as a freeway. I think that focus is gone. Between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach, a new location Carolina Bays Parkway interstate-standard freeway is also on official plans.

If NCDOT decided to under-take upgrading 140 miles of US 17 between Williamston and Wilmington to interstate standards, and call it an interstate, I think the most it will be would be a corridor between Norfolk and Myrtle Beach. Anything up the Eastern Shore just is not going to happen IMHO.

Of all the future interstates in eastern NC, I’m more eager for I-42 and I-795 to be completed.
Same here, I'm also eager to see US 17 upgraded here in the east. Finally a corridor will exist between Norfolk and I-95 & points south. Hopefully I-42, I-795, and I-87 will all be completed by 2040.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on March 06, 2019, 05:22:44 PM
I'd be less opposed to an I-101 if it didn't make the possibility of a 3di for it pretty much impossible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 06, 2019, 05:25:53 PM
The speed limit will likely be 65 MPH on the freeway, and 55 MPH on the divided highway. The speed limit of 70 MPH and 60 MPH suggested comes from the design speed of the project. Usually the speed limit is posted lower. For example, if a freeway is built to 70 MPH design speed, it's posted at 65 MPH. If it's a 75 MPH design speed, it's posted at 70 MPH.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/47303342911_604942e455_b.jpg) (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven%20Jones%20R-2514D%20C203592/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/R2514D%20250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 05:33:34 PM
The speed limit will likely be 65 MPH on the freeway, and 55 MPH on the divided highway. The speed limit of 70 MPH and 60 MPH suggested comes from the design speed of the project. Usually the speed limit is posted lower. For example, if a freeway is built to 70 MPH design speed, it's posted at 65 MPH. If it's a 75 MPH design speed, it's posted at 70 MPH.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/47303342911_604942e455_b.jpg) (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven%20Jones%20R-2514D%20C203592/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/R2514D%20250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)
Thanks for that, I did not realize that. So assuming it will then be 60 MPH on the partial-control-of-access portion. Now they need to raise the rest of US 17 between Maysville and Jacksonville to 60 MPH (I believe it's only 55 MPH).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 06:06:44 PM
The speed limit will likely be 65 MPH on the freeway, and 55 MPH on the divided highway. The speed limit of 70 MPH and 60 MPH suggested comes from the design speed of the project. Usually the speed limit is posted lower. For example, if a freeway is built to 70 MPH design speed, it's posted at 65 MPH. If it's a 75 MPH design speed, it's posted at 70 MPH.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7802/47303342911_604942e455_b.jpg) (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Craven%20Jones%20R-2514D%20C203592/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/R2514D%20250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)
Thanks for that, I did not realize that. So assuming it will then be 60 MPH on the partial-control-of-access portion. Now they need to raise the rest of US 17 between Maysville and Jacksonville to 60 MPH (I believe it's only 55 MPH).
Found the signage plans for the rest of the project - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Jones%20%20Onslow%20R-2514B%20R-2514C%20C203591/R-2514B/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/R2514B%20250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf

The partial-control-of-access portion between Maysville and Pollocksville where only 4-laning is occuring, it will be 60 MPH. The Maysville Bypass is going to pull a US 58 and only be 60 MPH. So no doing 70 MPH until you reach Pollocksville.

As per design plans, the Maysville Bypass has a 70 MPH design speed despite it only being posted at 60 MPH, so it can handle an increase in the future. The widening portion of existing US 17 has a 60 MPH design speed. I find it odd NCDOT is actually posting the speed limit at the design speed. Usually it is 5 MPH below. In a normal project, the widening here would be 55 MPH, and the freeway 65 MPH. But hey, I'm not complaining, they need to do this more.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Jones%20%20Onslow%20R-2514B%20R-2514C%20C203591/R-2514B/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/R2514B%20100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2015%20Highway%20Letting/06-16-15/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Jones%20%20Onslow%20R-2514B%20R-2514C%20C203591/R-2514C/Standard%20Pdf%20Plans/R2514C%20100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf

EDIT - Interestingly enough, the mileage sign for Washington NC is using the distance via NC 43 bypassing New Bern. From the US 17 Bypass / NC 58 interchange, it lists 39 miles. It's about 50 miles taking actual US 17 through New Bern, and 39 miles taking the NC 43 shortcut.

Do they do this elsewhere on US 17 in the New Bern area?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 06, 2019, 06:39:52 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 06:49:24 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
The Maysville Bypass is a full freeway with only overpasses & bridges, no at-grade intersections or connections permitted. There will be at-grade intersection with US 17 Business at the southern end however, because the freeway ends there. It will only be posted at 60 MPH because it's short (only 3 miles) and not deemed necessary to jump to 70 MPH then back to 60 MPH.  but it is designed so if desired, could be safely posted as high as 70 MPH. It's designed just like the Pollocksville Bypass, which will be posted 70 MPH from the beginning. That bypass will get the 70 MPH speed because it's 7 miles long, and ties into an existing 6 miles of 70 MPH freeway, heading to the 70 MPH US 70 bypass. No speed variations there, once you hit Pollocksville, you're flowing 70 MPH for at least 15 miles heading to New Bern, and 32 miles (and even further once the Kinston Bypass is built and I-42 comes) heading to Kinston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 06, 2019, 07:26:11 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
One can imagine US 17 in Brunswick County evolving gradually toward freeway status. The Bolivia Bypass was built without driveway connections, so it could easily be upgraded. There would be lots of support for replacing the stoplight at NC 211 in Supply with an interchange. The STIP already has a project to remove to one at-grade intersection on the Shallotte Bypass, which would make that section a freeway. Plus there's the plan for the freeway connection to SC 31 at the south end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 07:50:54 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
One can imagine US 17 in Brunswick County evolving gradually toward freeway status. The Bolivia Bypass was built without driveway connections, so it could easily be upgraded. There would be lots of support for replacing the stoplight at NC 211 in Supply with an interchange. The STIP already has a project to remove to one at-grade intersection on the Shallotte Bypass, which would make that section a freeway. Plus there's the plan for the freeway connection to SC 31 at the south end.
Likely a freeway to Wilmington would involve relocating US 17 between the Shallote Bypass and the Bolivia Bypass as a new location freeway. There would be too much impact to upgrade the existing roadway. From this point, the Bolivia Bypass could be upgraded to interstate standards, and another new-location freeway relocation between the Bolivia Bypass and I-140. This section could also be upgraded, because it's less developed. But the section between Shallote and Bolivia would more than likely be bypassed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 06, 2019, 10:07:58 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
The Maysville Bypass is a full freeway with only overpasses & bridges, no at-grade intersections or connections permitted. There will be at-grade intersection with US 17 Business at the southern end however, because the freeway ends there. It will only be posted at 60 MPH because it's short (only 3 miles) and not deemed necessary to jump to 70 MPH then back to 60 MPH.  but it is designed so if desired, could be safely posted as high as 70 MPH. It's designed just like the Pollocksville Bypass, which will be posted 70 MPH from the beginning. That bypass will get the 70 MPH speed because it's 7 miles long, and ties into an existing 6 miles of 70 MPH freeway, heading to the 70 MPH US 70 bypass. No speed variations there, once you hit Pollocksville, you're flowing 70 MPH for at least 15 miles heading to New Bern, and 32 miles (and even further once the Kinston Bypass is built and I-42 comes) heading to Kinston.

I was referring to the project as a whole, not the Maysville portion. Still satisfied with the final design of it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 06, 2019, 10:52:28 PM
This reminds me a lot of US 17 through Brunswick Co just south of Leland and around Shallotte. My original though was it was going to be full restricted freeway. I'm still fine with it. I hope it attracts some businesses on the southern end where my house is. (off of Belgrade-Swansboro Rd).
The Maysville Bypass is a full freeway with only overpasses & bridges, no at-grade intersections or connections permitted. There will be at-grade intersection with US 17 Business at the southern end however, because the freeway ends there. It will only be posted at 60 MPH because it's short (only 3 miles) and not deemed necessary to jump to 70 MPH then back to 60 MPH.  but it is designed so if desired, could be safely posted as high as 70 MPH. It's designed just like the Pollocksville Bypass, which will be posted 70 MPH from the beginning. That bypass will get the 70 MPH speed because it's 7 miles long, and ties into an existing 6 miles of 70 MPH freeway, heading to the 70 MPH US 70 bypass. No speed variations there, once you hit Pollocksville, you're flowing 70 MPH for at least 15 miles heading to New Bern, and 32 miles (and even further once the Kinston Bypass is built and I-42 comes) heading to Kinston.

I was referring to the project as a whole, not the Maysville portion. Still satisfied with the final design of it.
Oh okay. It's not a freeway now, however in the future another parallel roadway could be constructed to the new one, and the original road be converted back into the two-way US 17. The two new roadbeds would become a freeway at that point if warranted in the future.

At least they are posting the rarely used 60 MPH on this stretch. They need to do it more on other roadways in North Carolina. How come this will be 60 MPH, lined w/ homes, yet the stretch between Maysville and Jacksonville which is practically remote is only 55 MPH? Is there a major safety concern on this stretch or something? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on March 07, 2019, 07:13:39 AM
I'd be less opposed to an I-101 if it didn't make the possibility of a 3di for it pretty much impossible.

Not necessarily -- while 301 through 701 wouldn't be appropriate due to conflict with U.S. routes from VA down to SC, 201's up in Maine, so there wouldn't be a conflict -- and 801 & 901 are still available.  But that's getting ahead of things; it's not at all clear that a I-101 would be established at this point, much less any "children".  But the I-101 designation will likely be a subject of conjecture simply because of the lack of unused numbers in that grid area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 07, 2019, 12:34:06 PM
The new Bonner Bridge could be getting a new name.

https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/ (https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/)

It’s now the Marc Basnight Bridge.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 07, 2019, 04:43:23 PM
The new Bonner Bridge could be getting a new name.

https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/ (https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/)

It’s now the Marc Basnight Bridge.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx)
I don't care what new name they put on it, it'll always be the Bonner Bridge to me, along with a lot of other people. I don't know why they felt the need to re-name it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 07, 2019, 04:49:07 PM
It’s now the Marc Basnight Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx)
I don't care what new name they put on it, it'll always be the Bonner Bridge to me, along with a lot of other people. I don't know why they felt the need to re-name it.

It is a different bridge, and the segment retained from the original bridge will keep the Herbert C. Bonner Bridge name. 

Both of them were politicians and legislators, so there is nothing sacrosanct about using either name.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 07, 2019, 04:57:57 PM
The new Bonner Bridge could be getting a new name.

https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/ (https://www.wral.com/new-outer-banks-bridge-could-get-a-new-name-as-well/18174486/)

It’s now the Marc Basnight Bridge.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-07-basnight-bridge.aspx)
I don't care what new name they put on it, it'll always be the Bonner Bridge to me, along with a lot of other people. I don't know why they felt the need to re-name it.
I agree, it's going to be the New Bonner Bridge for lots of folks for a long time.

For the record: Marc Basnight, from Nags Head, was the President pro tem of the NC Senate from 1993 to 2011 (18 years). He was a powerful supporter of highway development, especially on the routes leading to the Outer Banks. The US 64 freeway is really his monument, rather the bridge.

Herbert C. Bonner was the US Congressman representing the Outer Banks from 1940 until his death in 1965 (25 years).  He is particularly known for his support for the Cape Hatteras National Seashore. The Outer Banks owes both Bonner and Basnight a lot. There is a PC objection to Bonner: he was a supporter of segregation like all NC political leaders of his generation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 07, 2019, 05:16:18 PM
I agree, it's going to be the New Bonner Bridge for lots of folks for a long time.

They could just call it the Oregon Inlet Bridge.

Simple, succinct and descriptive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on March 08, 2019, 10:50:20 AM
I agree, it's going to be the New Bonner Bridge for lots of folks for a long time.

They could just call it the Oregon Inlet Bridge.

Simple, succinct and descriptive.

Agree, Basnight was not squeaky clean either and, giving a description of the location that most ignore, is informative.

Also, as @wdcrft63 stated, his monument is the 64 freeway to the Outer Banks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 08, 2019, 06:16:13 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 08, 2019, 10:57:48 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.

I apologize if this has been litigated already, but will it be cash-less and all electronic? Or will there be toll booths?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 09, 2019, 06:51:55 AM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.

I apologize if this has been litigated already, but will it be cash-less and all electronic? Or will there be toll booths?
The Federal Record of Decision - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/record-of-decision.pdf - indicates that a toll plaza will be located the US-158 / Mid-Currituck Bridge interchange.

A design concept of what it could look like was done about a decade ago - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/MidCurrituckBridgeDocuments/Preferred%20Alternative%20Preliminary%20Design%20Scroll%201%20of%206%20-%20US%20158%20interchange.pdf

I would hope this design would be revised to provide a more traditional design IMHO, but nonetheless, that's presumably the plan for now. I recall seeing another option (not the preferred) that showed the toll plaza near the Currituck Sound, and the interchange with US-158, not having plazas, was a traditional trumpet. If they decided to go electronic instead, they'll likely just use the traditional trumpet design with overhead gantries through it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on March 09, 2019, 07:33:53 AM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.

I apologize if this has been litigated already, but will it be cash-less and all electronic? Or will there be toll booths?
The Federal Record of Decision - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/record-of-decision.pdf - indicates that a toll plaza will be located the US-158 / Mid-Currituck Bridge interchange.

A design concept of what it could look like was done about a decade ago - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/MidCurrituckBridgeDocuments/Preferred%20Alternative%20Preliminary%20Design%20Scroll%201%20of%206%20-%20US%20158%20interchange.pdf

I would hope this design would be revised to provide a more traditional design IMHO, but nonetheless, that's presumably the plan for now. I recall seeing another option (not the preferred) that showed the toll plaza near the Currituck Sound, and the interchange with US-158, not having plazas, was a traditional trumpet. If they decided to go electronic instead, they'll likely just use the traditional trumpet design with overhead gantries through it.

Thank you. Given that this design was a decade ago, maybe they still do the plaza with a dedicated lane for NC Quick Pass. Interested to follow.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 12, 2019, 08:51:26 AM
http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/03/12/Car-crash-helps-speed-replacement-of-bridge.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/03/12/Car-crash-helps-speed-replacement-of-bridge.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 13, 2019, 10:57:23 AM
NCDOT has awarded contract to rehab I-40 between the TN state line and mile marker 15. Work to begin in April and set for completion by June 2021.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-rehab-i-40-state-line.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-13-rehab-i-40-state-line.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 14, 2019, 01:42:58 PM
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/major-changes-coming-to-southern-stretch-of-i-485/930223753 (https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/major-changes-coming-to-southern-stretch-of-i-485/930223753)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 14, 2019, 04:05:08 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-14-nc-12-frisco-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-14-nc-12-frisco-closure.aspx)

Quote
FRISCO — The N.C. Department of Transportation will close a section of N.C. Highway 12 in Frisco from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. March 24 to replace two cross pipes under the road.

The closure will take place between Delmer Willis Road and Sunset Strip in Frisco. A marked detour route along the beach will be available for four-wheel drive traffic only between National Park Service ramps 48 and 49. Motorists using the detour are advised to follow the marked route and obey posted speed limits. There is no detour route available for vehicles without four-wheel drive.

The work will be performed as scheduled unless a major weather event occurs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on March 15, 2019, 09:24:46 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-14-nc-12-frisco-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-14-nc-12-frisco-closure.aspx)

Quote
FRISCO — The N.C. Department of Transportation will close a section of N.C. Highway 12 in Frisco from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. March 24 to replace two cross pipes under the road.

The closure will take place between Delmer Willis Road and Sunset Strip in Frisco. A marked detour route along the beach will be available for four-wheel drive traffic only between National Park Service ramps 48 and 49. Motorists using the detour are advised to follow the marked route and obey posted speed limits. There is no detour route available for vehicles without four-wheel drive.

The work will be performed as scheduled unless a major weather event occurs.

Yes, possible roadtrip for the Jeep!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 15, 2019, 12:10:53 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-15-bonner-bridge-closing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-15-bonner-bridge-closing.aspx)

Quote
NAGS HEAD — During the week of March 18, contractors for the N.C. Department of Transportation will be installing gates and fences around the southern end of the Bonner Bridge and adjoining catwalks, as workers prepare for demolition work on the bridge. This will temporarily end public access to the bridge while the demolition takes place.

“It’s a safety issue,”  said NCDOT Division One Engineer Jerry Jennings. “The south end of the old bridge will become a work zone for the next 10-12 months, so we need to keep the public out of harm’s way."

About 1,000 feet of the bridge will remain after the demolition process and be converted into a public walkway. That section is expected to reopen in 2020.​
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 16, 2019, 08:15:52 AM
Nothing a retaining wall can't fix.

(https://static-15.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/3b52c737-71db-488a-b57f-f39e4dd8ab8e-03.12HowardGap3.PNG) (https://wlos.com/news/local/ncdot-engineers-outline-a-plan-to-repair-damage-to-howard-gap-road)

The bigger problem is that I-26 is above the existing retaining wall on the right. A sinkhole has formed in the median near Howard Gap, and NCDOT has determined that the drainage system along this stretch of I-26 in Polk County needs to be repaired or replaced before the interstate goes too.

This three mile section of highway took eight years to build due to issues with drainage and slope stabilization.

(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/33762448165_4e28cdfb34_c.jpg) (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2916/33762448165_e39b699087_o.jpg)

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/230/457344189_0b49216c6e_o.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2019, 08:03:46 AM
New truck restrictions coming for a section of I-26.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 05:00:50 PM
New truck restrictions coming for a section of I-26.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx)
Mixed thoughts. While I agree trucks shouldn't be in the left lane, this is a 10 mile stretch of 4-lane interstate where trucks will not be permitted to pass. So if a truck is going 60 MPH (the speed limit), and for whatever reason another vehicle is within their legal right to do 50 MPH for example in the right lane, the truck has to sit behind him for 10 miles, even if the left lane is clear for him to speed past and carry on with his day.

I think the restriction should only apply when a truck is being THAT trucker (passes in the left lane at 60.2 MPH to pass the truck in the right lane doing 60.125 MPH) A clear pass should still be permitted though like I described above.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 19, 2019, 08:08:55 PM
New truck restrictions coming for a section of I-26.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx)
Mixed thoughts. While I agree trucks shouldn't be in the left lane, this is a 10 mile stretch of 4-lane interstate where trucks will not be permitted to pass.

More like 2.5 miles with 5% grades either side of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5126478,-82.5843143/35.4846992,-82.5596925/@35.4981405,-82.5757737,14.93z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5126478,-82.5843143/35.4846992,-82.5596925/@35.4981405,-82.5757737,14.93z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)

It will be such a cluster once they start widening later this year that it won't matter if there's a lane restriction or not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2019, 08:51:52 PM
New truck restrictions coming for a section of I-26.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-18-new-truck-restrictions-i-26.aspx)
Mixed thoughts. While I agree trucks shouldn't be in the left lane, this is a 10 mile stretch of 4-lane interstate where trucks will not be permitted to pass.

More like 2.5 miles with 5% grades either side of the Blue Ridge Parkway.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5126478,-82.5843143/35.4846992,-82.5596925/@35.4981405,-82.5757737,14.93z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0 (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.5126478,-82.5843143/35.4846992,-82.5596925/@35.4981405,-82.5757737,14.93z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0)

It will be such a cluster once they start widening later this year that it won't matter if there's a lane restriction or not.
Appears I missed that. I was looking at the further north crossing north of I-40. That makes more since, trucks riding the left lane on an uphill grade can be very hazardous.

I've not done it along this particular stretch, though I do recall once instance last year climbing Afton Mountain in Virginia along I-64, and being stuck behind two trucks doing 30 MPH, in a 65 MPH zone. Not fun.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 20, 2019, 02:05:25 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-20-wilson-road-repaving-contract.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-20-wilson-road-repaving-contract.aspx)

Quote
Wilson County drivers soon will enjoy a better ride on sections of U.S. 301 and N.C. 581 and over 18 secondary routes that will be repaved.

The N.C. Department of Transportation awarded S.T. Wooten Corp. of Wilson a $4 million contract this month to mill, resurface and restripe a 5-mile section of U.S. 301 between the Nash County line and Haynes Road, as well as the stretch of N.C. 581 between U.S. 301 and the Wayne County line.

In all, 22.5 miles of roadway will be refreshed. The contractor may begin this month and has until July 2020 to complete all of the improvements.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 21, 2019, 10:50:58 AM
The Broad Street bridge in Winston-Salem will open by March 30. It’s part of the Business 40 project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-21-broad-street-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-21-broad-street-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 26, 2019, 12:22:34 PM
The rest area/welcome center on I-95 near the Virginia state line will close beginning March 31 due to renovations. Reopening is set for December 16.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-26-renovations-await-i-95-rest-area.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-26-renovations-await-i-95-rest-area.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 27, 2019, 06:28:17 PM
The Durham to Chapel Hill Light Rail project met its demise today when GoTriangle (the Raleigh/Durham regional transit authority) pulled its support. The project died from ballooning costs and lack of support from two key players, the North Carolina Railway and Duke University. $130 million had been spent on planning the project.

https://www.wral.com/gotriangle-board-votes-to-end-its-pursuit-of-durham-orange-light-rail/18287399/

The loss of light rail will have to increase interest in bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives. There's already a lot of BRT interest in the area. Since the planned light rail route has been on the maps for years and has guided various development decisions, perhaps some of that route could be built as a dedicated busway instead. In any case, stay tuned for some BRT projects on area roads in the relatively near future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on March 27, 2019, 07:00:44 PM
Speaking of Durham—Chapel Hill, has there been any recent talk of completing US 501 as a freeway down to I-40 or further? It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, though nowhere near as bad a missing freeway link as the East End Connector.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2019, 08:57:20 PM
Speaking of Durham—Chapel Hill, has there been any recent talk of completing US 501 as a freeway down to I-40 or further? It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, though nowhere near as bad a missing freeway link as the East End Connector.

It is in the 2020-29 Draft STIP - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2019, 09:06:23 PM
The Durham to Chapel Hill Light Rail project met its demise today when GoTriangle (the Raleigh/Durham regional transit authority) pulled its support. The project died from ballooning costs and lack of support from two key players, the North Carolina Railway and Duke University. $130 million had been spent on planning the project.

Good.  Some light rail proposals make sense, such as the TIDE extension in Virginia Beach, but most don't and that includes the above proposal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2019, 09:56:55 PM
The Durham to Chapel Hill Light Rail project met its demise today when GoTriangle (the Raleigh/Durham regional transit authority) pulled its support. The project died from ballooning costs and lack of support from two key players, the North Carolina Railway and Duke University. $130 million had been spent on planning the project.

Good.  Some light rail proposals make sense, such as the TIDE extension in Virginia Beach, but most don't and that includes the above proposal.
The extension in Virginia beach would cost hundreds of millions. It was estimated in 2012 it would cost $254 million to extend it to the Town Center, and $807 million to the Oceanfront.

It's not worth it for that much cost. There's more dire needs in this area then a light rail, especially with that type of price tag.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on March 27, 2019, 10:06:34 PM
Some light rail proposals make sense, such as the TIDE extension in Virginia Beach, but most don't and that includes the above proposal.
The extension in Virginia beach would cost hundreds of millions. It was estimated in 2012 it would cost $254 million to extend it to the Town Center, and $807 million to the Oceanfront.
It's not worth it for that much cost. There's more dire needs in this area then a light rail, especially with that type of price tag.

I could see extending it to Town Center, given the level of urbanization there.  Extending to the Oceanfront would be a lot harder to justify for that cost.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 27, 2019, 11:21:30 PM
Speaking of Durham—Chapel Hill, has there been any recent talk of completing US 501 as a freeway down to I-40 or further? It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, though nowhere near as bad a missing freeway link as the East End Connector.

It is in the 2020-29 Draft STIP - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx

Interesting that they include that in the draft STIP but not the more-advanced-in-planning US 1 from 540 to Wake Forest...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on March 28, 2019, 07:46:00 AM
The Durham to Chapel Hill Light Rail project met its demise today when GoTriangle (the Raleigh/Durham regional transit authority) pulled its support. The project died from ballooning costs and lack of support from two key players, the North Carolina Railway and Duke University. $130 million had been spent on planning the project.

https://www.wral.com/gotriangle-board-votes-to-end-its-pursuit-of-durham-orange-light-rail/18287399/

The loss of light rail will have to increase interest in bus rapid transit (BRT) alternatives. There's already a lot of BRT interest in the area. Since the planned light rail route has been on the maps for years and has guided various development decisions, perhaps some of that route could be built as a dedicated busway instead. In any case, stay tuned for some BRT projects on area roads in the relatively near future.

Now the question is where did that $130 million really go, the Meadowmont area of Chapel Hill really despised that project from the beginning and that Go Triangle kept pressing for it makes one wonder that they were directing to friends.  With all the NIMBYS in the area, especially here in Woodcroft, a BRT route will have to be made on existing rights of way with little intrusion otherwise they are DOA like this Light Rail boondoggle.  Now will they rescind the half cent sales tax increase for this fantasy project, of course not, so remember this in the next election.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2019, 08:27:05 AM
^ Most of that $130 million likely went to environmental documentation and engineering plans.  Such typically comprises 10-20% of the total project cost.  The bigger the project, the more one needs to spend on the pre-planning.

BRT won't work unless it's on its own dedicated lanes...especially on 15/501.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on March 28, 2019, 11:44:18 AM
^ Most of that $130 million likely went to environmental documentation and engineering plans.  Such typically comprises 10-20% of the total project cost.  The bigger the project, the more one needs to spend on the pre-planning.

BRT won't work unless it's on its own dedicated lanes...especially on 15/501.

Have a feeling the NC General Assembly is going to want an audit of this project, we'll see.  The BRT would have to have areas added to the existing ROW's otherwise, they'll see even more people saying no.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 28, 2019, 12:04:55 PM
The NC Ferry System has created new Twitter feeds. I thought some might find the info useful.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-28-ferry-route-twitter-feeds.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-03-28-ferry-route-twitter-feeds.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 28, 2019, 02:36:38 PM
Quote from: goobnav
Have a feeling the NC General Assembly is going to want an audit of this project, we'll see.

Considering the NC General Assembly is largely anti-transit and their past actions contributed to the project cancellation, an "audit" would not be a surprise.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 28, 2019, 06:33:03 PM
Speaking of Durham—Chapel Hill, has there been any recent talk of completing US 501 as a freeway down to I-40 or further? It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, though nowhere near as bad a missing freeway link as the East End Connector.

It is in the 2020-29 Draft STIP - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx
Construction is scheduled to begin next year on the interchange of US 15/501 with Garrett Road. South of Garrett Road 15/501 crosses the New Hope Creek greenway, a 6-lane section with no driveway connections. Thus the Garrett Road interchange will extend the freeway almost to I-40. Unfortunately what's left is two major stoplight-controlled intersections with Southwest Durham Road and Mt. Moriah Road. Commercial development is intense around both intersections and it's difficult to imagine how a freeway could be jammed through to connect with fully controlled ramps to I-40. If anyone has seen plans for this, I'd like to see them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 07:11:28 PM
Speaking of Durham—Chapel Hill, has there been any recent talk of completing US 501 as a freeway down to I-40 or further? It seems like a pretty obvious candidate, though nowhere near as bad a missing freeway link as the East End Connector.

It is in the 2020-29 Draft STIP - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/draft-stip-map.aspx
Construction is scheduled to begin next year on the interchange of US 15/501 with Garrett Road. South of Garrett Road 15/501 crosses the New Hope Creek greenway, a 6-lane section with no driveway connections. Thus the Garrett Road interchange will extend the freeway almost to I-40. Unfortunately what's left is two major stoplight-controlled intersections with Southwest Durham Road and Mt. Moriah Road. Commercial development is intense around both intersections and it's difficult to imagine how a freeway could be jammed through to connect with fully controlled ramps to I-40. If anyone has seen plans for this, I'd like to see them.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5717-2017-10-09.aspx

Here's alternatives and visualizations of the Garrett Road interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2019, 07:40:18 PM
Here's a concept I developed (this is not official) on how an I-40 interchange could be constructed, along with an interchange to serve the adjacent developments. This would extend the US 15/501 freeway down to just south of I-40.

Only a few relocations, and the core retail area is not affected.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_15_Interchange/uOhwZelvU5
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on March 28, 2019, 08:04:16 PM
Too bad they don't seem to be actively planning to upgrade it past I-40, though the area does get a lot tighter there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 29, 2019, 05:30:08 PM
Here's a concept I developed (this is not official) on how an I-40 interchange could be constructed, along with an interchange to serve the adjacent developments. This would extend the US 15/501 freeway down to just south of I-40.

Only a few relocations, and the core retail area is not affected.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_15_Interchange/uOhwZelvU5
Thanks. It's a good starting point. My concerns would be: (1) the loop ramps are very tight and (2) there would be a Malfunction Junction effect caused by the two loop ramps on the west side being so close together. (I admit one would have to compare this with the congestion in the present configuration.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 05:42:16 PM
Here's a concept I developed (this is not official) on how an I-40 interchange could be constructed, along with an interchange to serve the adjacent developments. This would extend the US 15/501 freeway down to just south of I-40.

Only a few relocations, and the core retail area is not affected.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_15_Interchange/uOhwZelvU5
Thanks. It's a good starting point. My concerns would be: (1) the loop ramps are very tight and (2) there would be a Malfunction Junction effect caused by the two loop ramps on the west side being so close together. (I admit one would have to compare this with the congestion in the present configuration.)
One of the loops could also be replaced by another flyover. I'll try to revise the concept.

The loops would be posted at 25 MPH. It would work in an urban environment. And if another flyover is constructed, weaving wouldn't be a problem.

EDIT - I've updated the map to include a second flyover.

(https://i.ibb.co/NVt6yK7/US15-I40interchange.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 29, 2019, 05:45:28 PM
Earlier today I drove on NC 24 between Fayetteville and Clinton.  This was my first time driving on NC 24 in five years and the road has changed a lot!! The widening is now complete between Fayetteville and Clinton. 

However, I must say that traffic was a mess on the west side of Clinton between the bypass and Sampson Community College as NCDOT is putting the finishing touches on changing a center turning lane into a median.

After getting pass the construction mess, the road transitions nicely into a 4 lane divided rural highway.  The Speed Limit is only 55, but there are surprisingly a lot of driveways on this corridor.  NCDOT really shows it's love for superstreets on this highway.  It is also a fairly curvy road and a couple times I had to tap my brakes because there were a couple roads that intersected NC 24 on a curve and I found a couple impatient motorists that darted out into the left lane to complete their "Michigan Left."

Despite a couple dangerous superstreet intersections on NC 24, it is very nice to not have to slow down to 35 MPH anymore to go thru Roseboro & Autrytown.  Those towns have been bypassed.  There is one interchange on the new NC 24 and it is NC 242 just north of Roseboro.


There is only one at-grade signalized intersection on the New NC 24 and it is at a shopping center just east of I-95.  Westbound traffic has one superstreet traffic light and Eastbound has 2-3.

Per traveling legend Oscar Voss, the old NC 24 segments through Autryville and Roseboro  are now NC 24 Business routes.  GMSV shows the Autryville one and it looks like signposts were being installed for the Roseboro one in Aug 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 29, 2019, 06:26:53 PM
Here's a concept I developed (this is not official) on how an I-40 interchange could be constructed, along with an interchange to serve the adjacent developments. This would extend the US 15/501 freeway down to just south of I-40.

Only a few relocations, and the core retail area is not affected.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_15_Interchange/uOhwZelvU5
Thanks. It's a good starting point. My concerns would be: (1) the loop ramps are very tight and (2) there would be a Malfunction Junction effect caused by the two loop ramps on the west side being so close together. (I admit one would have to compare this with the congestion in the present configuration.)
One of the loops could also be replaced by another flyover. I'll try to revise the concept.

The loops would be posted at 25 MPH. It would work in an urban environment. And if another flyover is constructed, weaving wouldn't be a problem.

EDIT - I've updated the map to include a second flyover.

(https://i.ibb.co/NVt6yK7/US15-I40interchange.png)
Better. I like that the two loops are on ramps, so we're not asking freeway traffic to slow to 25 mph over a short distance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2019, 07:05:47 PM
Better. I like that the two loops are on ramps, so we're not asking freeway traffic to slow to 25 mph over a short distance.
Well technically, US 15 South to I-40 East would be a freeway to freeway movement, because US 15 is being upgraded to a freeway in this instance. Loop ramps can handle freeway traffic either way though.

Presumably, US 15 as a six-lane freeway would be likely posted at 60 MPH.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on March 30, 2019, 07:04:13 AM
Here's a concept I developed (this is not official) on how an I-40 interchange could be constructed, along with an interchange to serve the adjacent developments. This would extend the US 15/501 freeway down to just south of I-40.

Only a few relocations, and the core retail area is not affected.

https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/US_15_Interchange/uOhwZelvU5
Thanks. It's a good starting point. My concerns would be: (1) the loop ramps are very tight and (2) there would be a Malfunction Junction effect caused by the two loop ramps on the west side being so close together. (I admit one would have to compare this with the congestion in the present configuration.)
One of the loops could also be replaced by another flyover. I'll try to revise the concept.

The loops would be posted at 25 MPH. It would work in an urban environment. And if another flyover is constructed, weaving wouldn't be a problem.

EDIT - I've updated the map to include a second flyover.

(https://i.ibb.co/NVt6yK7/US15-I40interchange.png)
Better. I like that the two loops are on ramps, so we're not asking freeway traffic to slow to 25 mph over a short distance.
Nice but not likely. NCDOT rarely builds flyovers. North Carolina is the land of the Collector/Distributor Roadway. If this were Texas they there would be flyovers on all four quadrants but this is NC. They would add cloverleafs with C/D's and be done with it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Verlanka on March 30, 2019, 09:02:27 AM
Nice but not likely. NCDOT rarely builds flyovers. North Carolina is the land of the Collector/Distributor Roadway. If this were Texas they there would be flyovers on all four quadrants but this is NC. They would add cloverleafs with C/D's and be done with it.
Wouldn't it be a tight fit for all these cloverleafs?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 30, 2019, 06:36:21 PM
Nice but not likely. NCDOT rarely builds flyovers. North Carolina is the land of the Collector/Distributor Roadway. If this were Texas they there would be flyovers on all four quadrants but this is NC. They would add cloverleafs with C/D's and be done with it.
Wouldn't it be a tight fit for all these cloverleafs?
Very tight: and that's precisely the problem here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 30, 2019, 08:40:02 PM
How about a volleyball interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 30, 2019, 08:46:23 PM
How about a volleyball interchange.
The only issue would be traffic flow. The freeway design would likely end just south of I-40, which a significant amount of the traffic heading to or from I-40. It would still require traffic to stop at lights, and at that point, you might as well just leave the existing interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2019, 08:11:31 PM
An 1,000+ page DEIS has been signed and released for the Cape Fear Crossing proposal in Wilmington last week.

This certainly is not a dead project.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/U-4738/draft-environmental-impact-statement.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/cape-fear-crossing/Pages/default.aspx

Generally proposed is a four or six lane freeway from I-140 to Wilmington, crossing the Cape Fear River with a high-rise fixed span bridge. Other, less expensive alternatives, involve widening / upgrading the existing routes into Wilmington.

The project would cost between $600 million and $1 billion, and include open road tolling.

The posted speed limit would likely be 65 MPH or 70 MPH, indicated in the environmental impact statement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on March 31, 2019, 11:05:02 PM
An 1,000+ page DEIS has been signed and released for the Cape Fear Crossing proposal in Wilmington last week.

This certainly is not a dead project.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/U-4738/draft-environmental-impact-statement.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/cape-fear-crossing/Pages/default.aspx

Generally proposed is a four or six lane freeway from I-140 to Wilmington, crossing the Cape Fear River with a high-rise fixed span bridge. Other, less expensive alternatives, involve widening / upgrading the existing routes into Wilmington.

The project would cost between $600 million and $1 billion, and include open road tolling.

The posted speed limit would likely be 65 MPH or 70 MPH, indicated in the environmental impact statement.

Good to see that this is still active. Making the crossing an extension of US 117 seems like the most logical choice for all alternatives except (for what I hope are obvious reasons) V-AW, which makes most sense as a reroute of US 421.

Hopefully the final alternative is one of the ones with an actual freeway connection to I-140, since no alternative includes any freeway upgrades of US 17 between 140 and 74/76.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 02, 2019, 07:38:56 PM
The official ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Bonner Bridge Marc Basnight Bridge was held today.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-02-marc-basnight-bridge-ribbon-cutting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-02-marc-basnight-bridge-ribbon-cutting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2019, 10:01:41 AM
The 10th Street Connector in Greenville will open by the end of this month.

https://www.wnct.com/news/local-news/drivers-can-expect-to-be-on-tenth-street-connector-by-end-of-april/1894538381?fbclid=IwAR1KMPv4Fk-J7mo52F7a7C5GNafiHgfyHH9Cbq-_9cZy8qAIReCGto94eR0 (https://www.wnct.com/news/local-news/drivers-can-expect-to-be-on-tenth-street-connector-by-end-of-april/1894538381?fbclid=IwAR1KMPv4Fk-J7mo52F7a7C5GNafiHgfyHH9Cbq-_9cZy8qAIReCGto94eR0)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2019, 05:04:27 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-03-wilmington-interstate-bridge-repaired.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-03-wilmington-interstate-bridge-repaired.aspx)

Quote
WILMINGTON — A stretch of Interstate 140 East in Brunswick County is back open to traffic after the N.C. Department of Transportation made bridge repairs and performed an inspection of the structure.

On Saturday night, an NCDOT employee noticed an unusual bump on the eastbound I-140 bridge at the Cedar Hill Road exit. It was closed immediately for the safety of motorists, resulting in the multi-day shutdown of a section of the interstate.

An inspection on Sunday revealed a shift in metal plates between two of four girders.

NCDOT and contractors spent most of Monday bringing in necessary equipment to fix the issue.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, contractors lifted the span and reinstalled plates on the bridge. After it was lowered back into place, crews inspected the bridge again and determined structural elements, including the cap, columns and foundation, were sound. Traffic was then allowed back on the highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 04, 2019, 04:58:44 PM
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1113885454326169603

In 10 years, there will be a new bypass and a new interchange. In fact, a full blown interstate, I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 05, 2019, 09:14:55 AM
Update on the C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension project in Kinston.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-05-road-closures-lenoir-county-extension-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-05-road-closures-lenoir-county-extension-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 09, 2019, 11:18:40 AM
A project in my old stomping grounds. NCDOT is holding a public meeting on April 23 in Goldsboro to discuss widening US-70 Business (East Ash Street) between Berkeley Boulevard and US-70.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-09-ncdot-hold-meeting-wayne-county-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-09-ncdot-hold-meeting-wayne-county-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 09, 2019, 07:24:01 PM
News coverage on two major interstate projects in Raleigh area, the widening of I-40 between I-440 and NC 42 southeast of town and the widening of I-440 between Wade Avenue and I-40 on the southwest side of town.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article229013554.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 10, 2019, 10:02:38 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-10-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-10-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-closure.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE — A Jones County road will be closed in mid-April for construction as the N.C. Department of Transportation works toward completing a larger project, tying it into the existing U.S. 17 New Bern Bypass.

Ten Mile Fork Road will be closed from 7 a.m., April 12, through 6 p.m., April 16. During that time, NCDOT will set girders over the Pollocksville road.  These two bridges are the last of a total of 26 structures to have girders installed.

While the closure is taking place, traffic will be detoured onto Scott Road, Oak Grove Road, Killis Murphy Road/ Loop Road and U.S. 17.

This work is part of a much larger project which will be more than 16 miles long between south of Belgrade and the existing U.S. 17 New Bern Bypass. Construction for this project started in October 2015, with a contract costing $143.4 million. NCDOT expects drivers on the new road by this November.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 12, 2019, 10:45:55 AM
After being closed for 6 months, the NC-133 Oak Island Bridge will re-open today.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-oak-island-bridge-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-oak-island-bridge-opens-early.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 12, 2019, 02:50:05 PM
Another rock slide has closed I-40 near the TN border for a week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-23-i-40-rock-slide.aspx)

I-40 has reopened, though it’s currently only one lane each way.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx)

Update on the ongoing repairs.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-additional-i-40-slide-repairs.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-additional-i-40-slide-repairs.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 12, 2019, 06:57:56 PM
Zion Church Road in Wayne County has finally re-opened today. It was the last road in the state that was still closed due to damage from Hurricane Florence.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-last-road-closed-hurricane-florence-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-last-road-closed-hurricane-florence-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 14, 2019, 06:12:26 PM
It appears that the US321 freeway in Hickory NC has had a speed limit reduction north of the NC 127 interchange.  The speed is dropped to 55 in both directions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 10:00:12 PM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/04/10/Chowan-trucker-dies-after-collision-on-US-17.html

Happened last week, but still...

A women stopped in the middle of US-17 (a four-lane divided 55 MPH highway) north of Edenton to let a turtle cross, and a trucker, who didn't have enough time to stop, crashed into the back of the women's vehicle, resulting in him veering into the ditch, totaling the truck, and causing him to eventually pass away at the hospital later on.

Who's in the wrong? The women stopped in the middle of a high-speed highway, or the trucker, who didn't have enough time to fully stop after realizing she's not moving at all?

IMHO, the women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You don't stop in the middle of a highway. It's common sense. The turtle was apparently more important than the person she killed. And interestingly enough, the turtle didn't even survive. Shameful.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 14, 2019, 10:35:46 PM
It appears that the US321 freeway in Hickory NC has had a speed limit reduction north of the NC 127 interchange.  The speed is dropped to 55 in both directions.

Or maybe you finally noticed the sign, it has always been 55mph at NC 127 interchange continuing north into Hickory.  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 10:48:52 PM
It appears that the US321 freeway in Hickory NC has had a speed limit reduction north of the NC 127 interchange.  The speed is dropped to 55 in both directions.

Or maybe you finally noticed the sign, it has always been 55mph at NC 127 interchange continuing north into Hickory.  :awesomeface:
April 2008 even shows that. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6880426,-81.3478152,3a,75y,304.39h,86.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXv8ZhtKH4nM1wofhmFLCfA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664

It has never been 65 MPH beyond that interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 14, 2019, 11:00:18 PM
Dang, and here I am for the last 3 years flying down the SB entrance ramp from 70, doing 70 before hitting 40 WB.  I could swear thought that the 55 signs on 321 SB right under the 40 bridges are new.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2019, 11:02:39 PM
Dang, and here I am for the last 3 years flying down the SB entrance ramp from 70, doing 70 before hitting 40 WB.  I could swear thought that the 55 signs on 321 SB right under the 40 bridges are new.
To be honest, everybody else is also flying 70. So not too much to worry about  :awesomeface:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 14, 2019, 11:23:29 PM
Dang, and here I am for the last 3 years flying down the SB entrance ramp from 70, doing 70 before hitting 40 WB.  I could swear thought that the 55 signs on 321 SB right under the 40 bridges are new.

No, just the exit signage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 15, 2019, 05:12:49 PM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/04/10/Chowan-trucker-dies-after-collision-on-US-17.html

Happened last week, but still...

A women stopped in the middle of US-17 (a four-lane divided 55 MPH highway) north of Edenton to let a turtle cross, and a trucker, who didn't have enough time to stop, crashed into the back of the women's vehicle, resulting in him veering into the ditch, totaling the truck, and causing him to eventually pass away at the hospital later on.

Who's in the wrong? The women stopped in the middle of a high-speed highway, or the trucker, who didn't have enough time to fully stop after realizing she's not moving at all?

IMHO, the women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You don't stop in the middle of a highway. It's common sense. The turtle was apparently more important than the person she killed. And interestingly enough, the turtle didn't even survive. Shameful.

Pure stupidity on her part. :banghead: No turtle is worth risking people’s lives.

As for who’s legally at fault...unless things have changed since I last lived in NC, it would be the truck driver. According to state law, hitting somebody in the ass automatically puts you at fault, no matter the circumstances. That’s probably why the cops are “re-examining the charges.”  If that truck driver had survived, he would be the one getting charged for her stupidity. Either way, dead or alive, he was screwed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 15, 2019, 05:13:44 PM
I-40 has reopened, though it’s currently only one lane each way.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-28-i-40-reopen-slide.aspx)

Update on the ongoing repairs.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-additional-i-40-slide-repairs.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-12-additional-i-40-slide-repairs.aspx)

Another update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-15-rolling-roadblock-i-40-slide.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-15-rolling-roadblock-i-40-slide.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on April 15, 2019, 10:05:55 PM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/04/10/Chowan-trucker-dies-after-collision-on-US-17.html

Happened last week, but still...

A women stopped in the middle of US-17 (a four-lane divided 55 MPH highway) north of Edenton to let a turtle cross, and a trucker, who didn't have enough time to stop, crashed into the back of the women's vehicle, resulting in him veering into the ditch, totaling the truck, and causing him to eventually pass away at the hospital later on.

Who's in the wrong? The women stopped in the middle of a high-speed highway, or the trucker, who didn't have enough time to fully stop after realizing she's not moving at all?

IMHO, the women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You don't stop in the middle of a highway. It's common sense. The turtle was apparently more important than the person she killed. And interestingly enough, the turtle didn't even survive. Shameful.

Pure stupidity on her part. :banghead: No turtle is worth risking people’s lives.

As for who’s legally at fault...unless things have changed since I last lived in NC, it would be the truck driver. According to state law, hitting somebody in the ass automatically puts you at fault, no matter the circumstances. That’s probably why the cops are “re-examining the charges.”  If that truck driver had survived, he would be the one getting charged for her stupidity. Either way, dead or alive, he was screwed.
What if the turtle were a large object that fell from a vehicle in front? What if it were a person? I agree stopping for the turtle was not the right thing to do but it is possible the deceased truck driver was not blameless either. Really we don't yet know all the details so any judgement on our parts is premature.

These days, absolutely nobody leaves enough space in front of them when driving. 2 seconds is the absolute minimum in perfect conditions with perfect reaction time and with immediate full application of brakes, either with antilock or perfectly modulated to avoid loss of control, and with everybody's vehicle capable of stopping fast enough (good tires, good brake pads, no heavy loads, no trailers, etc.)

One thing they really drill into you when getting your CDL is safe following distance. Hint: it's MUCH longer for trucks. Sometimes drivers cut in front of truckers who are doing the right thing, merging into their space, which does suck but is not a reason for truck drivers to follow too closely.

When I was 17, I stopped fairly hard for a yellow light because a police car was at the cross street at the intersection. I then got rear ended by a truck that was following too closely. He got a ticket but I got whiplash. That day I learned to check my rearview before stopping hard if I have any choice about it at all.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2019, 03:09:44 AM
http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2019/04/10/Chowan-trucker-dies-after-collision-on-US-17.html

Happened last week, but still...

A women stopped in the middle of US-17 (a four-lane divided 55 MPH highway) north of Edenton to let a turtle cross, and a trucker, who didn't have enough time to stop, crashed into the back of the women's vehicle, resulting in him veering into the ditch, totaling the truck, and causing him to eventually pass away at the hospital later on.

Who's in the wrong? The women stopped in the middle of a high-speed highway, or the trucker, who didn't have enough time to fully stop after realizing she's not moving at all?

IMHO, the women should be charged with involuntary manslaughter. You don't stop in the middle of a highway. It's common sense. The turtle was apparently more important than the person she killed. And interestingly enough, the turtle didn't even survive. Shameful.

Pure stupidity on her part. :banghead: No turtle is worth risking people’s lives.

As for who’s legally at fault...unless things have changed since I last lived in NC, it would be the truck driver. According to state law, hitting somebody in the ass automatically puts you at fault, no matter the circumstances. That’s probably why the cops are “re-examining the charges.”  If that truck driver had survived, he would be the one getting charged for her stupidity. Either way, dead or alive, he was screwed.

What if the turtle were a large object that fell from a vehicle in front? What if it were a person? I agree stopping for the turtle was not the right thing to do but it is possible the deceased truck driver was not blameless either. Really we don't yet know all the details so any judgement on our parts is premature.

These days, absolutely nobody leaves enough space in front of them when driving. 2 seconds is the absolute minimum in perfect conditions with perfect reaction time and with immediate full application of brakes, either with antilock or perfectly modulated to avoid loss of control, and with everybody's vehicle capable of stopping fast enough (good tires, good brake pads, no heavy loads, no trailers, etc.)

One thing they really drill into you when getting your CDL is safe following distance. Hint: it's MUCH longer for trucks. Sometimes drivers cut in front of truckers who are doing the right thing, merging into their space, which does suck but is not a reason for truck drivers to follow too closely.

When I was 17, I stopped fairly hard for a yellow light because a police car was at the cross street at the intersection. I then got rear ended by a truck that was following too closely. He got a ticket but I got whiplash. That day I learned to check my rearview before stopping hard if I have any choice about it at all.

If it were a large object or a person, then yes, I could understand stopping. I get what your saying and you may be right that the truck driver was following too closely and if he was, then that was a dumb move on his part, but my beef is the fact that the woman put lives at risk over a turtle that still ended up dead.

I guess it’s all moot anyway since the truck driver is automatically at fault by law, regardless of whether or not he was following too closely. I would be shocked if the cops don’t drop the charges against the woman.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2019, 11:48:21 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-16-speed-limit-reduced-burke-i-40.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-16-speed-limit-reduced-burke-i-40.aspx)

Quote
ASHEVILLE – The N.C. Department of Transportation and State Highway Patrol have agreed to a speed limit reduction for a five-mile section of Interstate 40 in Burke County that includes two active work zones.

A new speed limit of 55 mph for eastbound and westbound traffic will be enforced starting Tuesday between mile markers 111 and 116 to increase safety for drivers and road workers in the area. The speed limit in the area was 65 mph in areas outside the work zones.

This section of I-40 includes the active work zones to build new bridges over Mineral Springs Mountain Road and Berea Church Road. The new regulation will last until construction is complete on both projects.

“The reduction of the speed limit from 65 to 55 mph, and increased enforcement from the State Highway Patrol is intended to raise awareness of those traveling through the work zone,”  Division 13 Assistant Construction Engineer Nathan Moneyham said. “It is critical for drivers to slow down and be alert, especially when there are construction delays and backups.”

The speed reduction from 65 mph to 55 mph only adds 48 more seconds to this five-mile drive.

The two projects replace four bridges on this section of I-40 for a total combined cost of $20.9 million.

The project near Icard replaces the two bridges – one eastbound and the other westbound – over Berea Church Road. This $8.5 million project is scheduled to be complete in March of 2020. The project on I-40 over Mineral Springs Mountain Road, began in July of 2018 and should be completed by June of 2021 at a cost of $12.4 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on April 16, 2019, 10:35:37 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2019, 11:11:38 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
It’s planned to get completed by July 2019. I’m driving through there today, and will be taking US 64 up to I-95 North. I’ll post any updates if anything has changed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 17, 2019, 11:25:33 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
It’s planned to get completed by July 2019. I’m driving through there today, and will be taking US 64 up to I-95 North. I’ll post any updates if anything has changed.

Are they in the middle of a project to replace I-495 with I-87 on the major signs, or are you referring to something else?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on April 17, 2019, 11:35:39 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
It’s planned to get completed by July 2019. I’m driving through there today, and will be taking US 64 up to I-95 North. I’ll post any updates if anything has changed.
There are a handful of I-87 shields east of 540, but none past Wendell or so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2019, 01:10:00 PM
Shouldn't the comments on Interstate 87 be on the Interstate 87 (NC-VA) thread instead of this one, which is about North Carolina in general?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 17, 2019, 06:22:39 PM
Shouldn't the comments on Interstate 87 be on the Interstate 87 (NC-VA) thread instead of this one, which is about North Carolina in general?
Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2019, 09:24:44 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
It’s planned to get completed by July 2019. I’m driving through there today, and will be taking US 64 up to I-95 North. I’ll post any updates if anything has changed.

Are they in the middle of a project to replace I-495 with I-87 on the major signs, or are you referring to something else?
Apart of the I-40 widening south of the I-87 / I-40 junction, the contractors are responsible for replacing all the of the I-495 shields & overhead signs with I-87. Hopefully, by July or so, I-495 signs will be fully removed, and I-87 will be correctly posted.

Drove by there today, it's still signed I-495 on all of the overheads as it has been.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 18, 2019, 11:06:42 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-18-new-hanover-county-market-street-lane-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-18-new-hanover-county-market-street-lane-closures.aspx)

Quote
WILMINGTON- The N.C. Department of Transportation is improving a New Hanover County road and has planned lane closures for the construction.

Intermittent lanes closures will occur on Market Street tonight through mid-November of 2022. Lane closures will be restricted to 8 p.m. to 6 a.m., seven days a week, to minimize traffic delays.

During the closures, NCDOT will widen the road to install medians, concrete islands and turn lanes from​​​​​ Lendire Road to Mendenhall Road.

Drivers are urged to stay alert, obey the posted speed limit in the work zone and allow for extra travel time, but if possible, seek alternate routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 18, 2019, 02:33:42 PM
A contract has been awarded for preservation work on the US-64 bridges over Jordan Lake. Work can begin April 29 and will finish by September 1, 2020.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-18-jordan-lake-bridge-preservation.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-18-jordan-lake-bridge-preservation.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 22, 2019, 05:36:35 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (April 29 in Wilmington, April 30 in Leland) to discuss the proposed Cape Fear Crossing.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-22-cape-fear-crossing-hearing-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-22-cape-fear-crossing-hearing-open-house.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2019, 04:34:02 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-23-pitt-county-bell-arthur-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-23-pitt-county-bell-arthur-closure.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — The N.C. Department of Transportation continues work on a bypass in Pitt County, which is expected to relieve congestion and improve safety in the area. Starting late this month, crews will close a road as pa​rt of that future freeway project.

Bell Arthur Road in Greenville will be closed from 7 a.m., April 29, through November. During the closure, the contractor will replace a box culvert.

While Bell Arthur Road is closed, traffic will be detoured onto U.S. 13/264A and Nash Joyner Road.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway between two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrapping around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and ending at the U.S. 264 Bypass, west of Greenville. The new highway should open in 2020.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time through November and should use caution when approaching the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on April 23, 2019, 06:34:05 PM
Can someone please tell me when the US 264 NW Bypass opened by Greenville?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2019, 07:43:59 PM
Can someone please tell me when the US 264 NW Bypass opened by Greenville?
Sometime between 1993 - 1995. The 1993-1994 official does not show it, though it is listed as open on the 1995 official.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on April 23, 2019, 08:17:33 PM
Can someone please tell me when the US 264 NW Bypass opened by Greenville?
Sometime between 1993 - 1995. The 1993-1994 official does not show it, though it is listed as open on the 1995 official.

Thanks!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on April 23, 2019, 10:08:57 PM
Is there plans to connect I-140 to the future I-74 to connect the future interstate with Wilmington?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 24, 2019, 01:44:26 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-24-pitt-county-tenth-street-connector-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-24-pitt-county-tenth-street-connector-closure.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE- The N.C. Department of Transportation will perform a ”˜marathon weekend’ of construction, working around the clock for one weekend, as part of the 10th Street Connector project.

After the evening rush hour, at 7 p.m. on April 26, NCDOT will close the intersection of Memorial Drive and Stantonsburg Road. Crews will reopen the Greenville intersection by 5 a.m. April 29. These dates are weather permitting.

The NCDOT will raise the elevation of the intersection by wedging the intersection with asphalt, preparing it for the final layer of asphalt. Closing the intersection is needed because of the amount of asphalt that has to be placed and for the safety of the workers, as well as the public.

Traffic will be detoured onto Arlington Boulevard, Dickinson Avenue and N.C. 43/ 5th Street. The streets between Arlington Boulevard and 14th Street should allow access for all businesses and residents to be maintained.

This work is part of the 10th Street Connector project. Once the project is completed, it will transform the Greenville road into a four-lane divided road with a landscaped median that directly links Memorial Drive to 10th Street at Evans Street.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 24, 2019, 03:00:21 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.

The SELC has filed a lawsuit.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824 (https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 24, 2019, 06:13:48 PM
Is there plans to connect I-140 to the future I-74 to connect the future interstate with Wilmington?
Not yet, but stay tuned. This is an idea that seems inevitable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 06:15:50 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx

This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.

The SELC has filed a lawsuit.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824 (https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824)
For god's sake, they will never give up. These environmental activist groups are nothing but a joke that is purposely to delay and get in the way of needed projects. They have really no other agenda but to obstruct and block any type of highway project.

They will loose. This will hopefully eventually get built. We saw how well they did with NC-540. They're still trying with I-73 in North Carolina even though permits have been issued, they just need funding and construction could start tomorrow.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 24, 2019, 08:17:32 PM
How serious has NC been about I-74 past Rockingham? The push to take it to Myrtle Beach was from SC, right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 24, 2019, 08:24:18 PM
How serious has NC been about I-74 past Rockingham? The push to take it to Myrtle Beach was from SC, right?

NC is definitely going to get I-74 finished to east of Whiteville.  After that it is less certain...most people think it would make more sense to get the law changed to have I-74 go to Wilmington instead of looping back southwest to Myrtle Beach from Bolton.

SC is trying to get I-73 from Rockingham to Myrtle Beach
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:32:34 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx
This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.
The SELC has filed a lawsuit.
https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824 (https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824)
For god's sake, they will never give up. These environmental activist groups are nothing but a joke that is purposely to delay and get in the way of needed projects. They have really no other agenda but to obstruct and block any type of highway project.

Yeah, but the RE/T groups are worried about the global warming and the "rising seas".

Seems like every time you see a newspaper nowadays they have another article about the "rising seas". 

You would think by now that the OBX would be completely under water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 08:40:02 PM
Here's news about another OBX bridge project. The Federal Record of Decision has arrived for the Mid-Currituck Bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-02-08-mid-currituck-bridge-record-of-decision.aspx
This allows ROW acquisition and final design to begin. It's a toll project, so the Turnpike Authority will be pushing it along.
The SELC has filed a lawsuit.
https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824 (https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/groups-file-lawsuit-over-approval-of-north-carolina-bridge/1949293824)
For god's sake, they will never give up. These environmental activist groups are nothing but a joke that is purposely to delay and get in the way of needed projects. They have really no other agenda but to obstruct and block any type of highway project.

Yeah, but the RE/T groups are worried about the global warming and the "rising seas".

Seems like every time you see a newspaper nowadays they have another article about the "rising seas". 

You would think by now that the OBX would be completely under water.
It's all bogus, that's simply it. Climate change certainly is occurring to some extent and rising seas may be happening extremely slowly, but the way it's taken nowadays is way to excessive IMHO. Just a political and environmental push it seems, though I'm not going to get into politics on here.

It's likely this will just die out in the courts, and construction will continue forward and begin in 2021 as planned. The feds have already approved the project for construction, there's not much stopping it except for this last attempt from SELC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on April 24, 2019, 08:53:07 PM
It's all bogus, that's simply it. Climate change certainly is occurring to some extent and rising seas may be happening extremely slowly, but the way it's taken nowadays is way to excessive IMHO. Just a political and environmental push it seems, though I'm not going to get into politics on here.
It's likely this will just die out in the courts, and construction will continue forward and begin in 2021 as planned. The feds have already approved the project for construction, there's not much stopping it except for this last attempt from SELC.

Actually the first attempt.  The RE/T groups need to wait until a federal approval of the project (FEIS and ROD) takes place before there is an issue that can be challenged in the federal courts.  And then the only thing they can challenge is whether the correct process was followed step by step, that an exhaustive evaluation of all environmental impacts was conducted.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 09:03:45 PM
It's all bogus, that's simply it. Climate change certainly is occurring to some extent and rising seas may be happening extremely slowly, but the way it's taken nowadays is way to excessive IMHO. Just a political and environmental push it seems, though I'm not going to get into politics on here.
It's likely this will just die out in the courts, and construction will continue forward and begin in 2021 as planned. The feds have already approved the project for construction, there's not much stopping it except for this last attempt from SELC.

Actually the first attempt.  The RE/T groups need to wait until a federal approval of the project (FEIS and ROD) takes place before there is an issue that can be challenged in the federal courts.  And then the only thing they can challenge is whether the correct process was followed step by step, that an exhaustive evaluation of all environmental impacts was conducted.
The FEIS (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/MidCurrituckBridgeDocuments/Final%20Environmental%20Impact%20Statement%20January%202012.pdf) was published on January 12, 2012, and was recently reevaluated. Both the reevaluated FEIS (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/final-reevaluation-feis.pdf), and the ROD (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/record-of-decision.pdf) were published March 6, 2019.

Now that the project is able to begin construction once final funding is secured, and is schedule to occur in 2021, the SELC is trying to kill the project right before it starts. It's their "first" shot at NCDOT, but a final attempt to kill it even after it's already been through extensive study and is permitted for construction. That's what I was getting at with "last attempt".

They tried the same thing after I-73 in South Carolina was permitted for construction, but failed. The only thing stopping that project now is the lack of funding. But once SCDOT or the localities (they're planning on pitching in some funding) comes up with the money, or if a toll road is instead pursued, construction is allowed to begin.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 24, 2019, 09:19:38 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/EKxk7YiUeWGQwHSK8
Still no I-87 in the field.  I guess NCDOT is on their own timeline.
It’s planned to get completed by July 2019. I’m driving through there today, and will be taking US 64 up to I-95 North. I’ll post any updates if anything has changed.

Are they in the middle of a project to replace I-495 with I-87 on the major signs, or are you referring to something else?
Apart of the I-40 widening south of the I-87 / I-40 junction, the contractors are responsible for replacing all the of the I-495 shields & overhead signs with I-87. Hopefully, by July or so, I-495 signs will be fully removed, and I-87 will be correctly posted.

Drove by there today, it's still signed I-495 on all of the overheads as it has been.

On the other hand, this Michigander was on a roadtrip through North Carolina just last week, drove a stretch of US-264 east of Raleigh, and saw one or two of these displays.  Interesting that NC was so eager to post I-87 that they installed a separate signpost for it rather than waiting until they were ready to replace all the I-495 shields:
(https://i.imgur.com/5KgxlSz.jpg)

Maybe it's some kind of insecurity complex.  To steer this back to a more general NC topic, the state is also anxious to be sure we are aware of what's coming, such as:
(https://i.imgur.com/qFweTFo.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2019, 09:31:32 PM
On the other hand, this Michigander was on a roadtrip through North Carolina just last week, drove a stretch of US-264 east of Raleigh, and saw one or two of these displays.  Interesting that NC was so eager to post I-87 that they installed a separate signpost for it rather than waiting until they were ready to replace all the I-495 shields:

Maybe it's some kind of insecurity complex.  To steer this back to a more general NC topic, the state is also anxious to be sure we are aware of what's coming, such as:
My comment was more or less referring to the overhead signage that still displays "I-495". The shields you've posted were put up back in September 2017, and has been there since. They still have yet to fix the overhead signage, and replace the "I-495" signage on the three-shield sign with "I-87".

That 9-mile stretch is officially designated and recognized by FHWA as "I-87", not "I-495". FHWA and NCDOT decommissioned I-495 in the last year or so, and designated "I-87" in September 2017. That currently is the only stretch of freeway between Raleigh and I-95 that meets interstate standards. That 9-mile stretch was constructed in 2006, while the rest of the freeway to I-95 was built in phases throughout the late 70s, lacking full 10-foot right shoulders. It's still a highly-effective 70 MPH freeway link to I-95 north from Raleigh nonetheless. The only missing piece is a freeway all the way to coastal VA and northeastern NC, and that's the goal of the I-87 corridor in the long run.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 25, 2019, 10:16:06 AM
The 10th Street Connector in Greenville has opened.

https://wcti12.com/traffic/road-work/greenvilles-10th-street-connector-now-open (https://wcti12.com/traffic/road-work/greenvilles-10th-street-connector-now-open)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on April 25, 2019, 10:57:13 AM
Oh look, spreltway are both on the wrong side of history. Fuck 'em.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on April 25, 2019, 03:50:07 PM
Finally! They have found common ground. Hey beltway and sprjus. It snowed, in January. Climate change?  Yeah right. Why does it still snow then? Clearly it is a hoax, that 99% of scientist agree on and 100% dumb ass, fossil fuel lobby puppeted politicians, oh, and couple of road geeks disagree with. What a scam.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2019, 03:51:10 PM
Do you have to be so rude?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 25, 2019, 03:56:56 PM
Do you have to be so rude?

They think Wrong Things™, therefore anything goes.

(/s in case it wasn't obvious)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2019, 04:05:08 PM
I felt nerdom and NE2 were being disrespectful to sprjus4 and Beltway with their comments. There was no need for that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 25, 2019, 04:48:55 PM
I felt nerdom and NE2 were being disrespectful to sprjus4 and Beltway with their comments. There was no need for that.
You learn to just ignore it. It's not worth the time to deal with, they're not going to change their opinions / position, and likewise, I'm not going to change my opinion / position either.

An argument would go nowhere, so I'm not getting into it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on April 25, 2019, 08:37:33 PM
I felt nerdom and NE2 were being disrespectful to sprjus4 and Beltway with their comments.
No shit, fucko.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on April 25, 2019, 09:11:01 PM
I felt nerdom and NE2 were being disrespectful to sprjus4 and Beltway with their comments. There was no need for that.
You learn to just ignore it. It's not worth the time to deal with, they're not going to change their opinions / position, and likewise, I'm not going to change my opinion / position either.  An argument would go nowhere, so I'm not getting into it.

This is a job for Demonbusters.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 26, 2019, 04:21:03 PM
Update on the Business 40 project in Winston-Salem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-business-40-bridges-open-close.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-business-40-bridges-open-close.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2019, 05:30:28 PM
Google Earth was updated with new aerial imagery from March 12, 2019 along the US-17 corridor, showing progress on the Maysville / Pollocksville bypasses & the segment in between. Here's some of that imagery.

This is the northern tie of the Pollocksville Bypass to the existing US-17 Bypass. By this point, the existing bypass had been closed (which is still currently closed) to work on that tie in -
(https://i.ibb.co/0cjtF9W/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-North-Tie-In-March2019.png)

Simmons Loop Rd overpass -
(https://i.ibb.co/T4xmwMN/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Simmons-Rd-March2019.png)

10 Mile Fork Rd overpass -
(https://i.ibb.co/4WCYYQq/US-17-Maysville-Bypass10-Mile-Fork-Rd-March2019.png)

Oak Grove Rd overpass -
(https://i.ibb.co/HGPTQ1D/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Oak-Grove-Rd-March2019.png)

Bridges over the Trent River -
(https://i.ibb.co/xY6j38J/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Trent-River-March2019.png)

Bridges over the Goshen Branch & Goshen Rd overpass -
(https://i.ibb.co/99yMX2y/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Goshen-March2019.png)

Also by this point, 2 miles of the bypass opened between the southern terminus and the NC-58 interchange. Here's the US-17 Bypass / NC-58 interchange (note you can see where traffic is forced to exit at this point) -
(https://i.ibb.co/ZhQq9kK/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-NC58-March2019.png)

Segment of the Pollocksville bypass that's currently open. Note that this short 2 mile segment has all four lanes open, whereas the at-grade widening segment south of here and the Maysville Bypasses only have one lane open. Until it's fully completed, this segment sort of acts like a "passing lane" area for traffic to safely pass slower vehicles.
(https://i.ibb.co/QFvtDf0/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Open-Segment4-Lane-March2019.png)

Southern tie in of the Pollocksville bypass with the existing US-17 -
(https://i.ibb.co/zh3g1wg/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Southern-Tie-In-Pollocksville-March2019.png)

Segments of the four-lane at-grade widening. Note in the second picture a small part of the eastern roadway open solely for property access. Also note that only one lane in each direction is open as opposed to all four seen on the short segment of the Pollocksville Bypass -
(https://i.ibb.co/9Zmr7YN/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Widening-In-Between-Segment-March2019.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/2dJ58wz/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Widening-In-Between-Segment2-March2019.png)

Maysville Bypass northern tie in -
(https://i.ibb.co/m9rP8NQ/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Northern-Tie-In-Maysville-March2019.png)

Maysville Bypass bridges over the White Oak River & wetlands south of White Oak River. Note that on this bypass, only one lane in each direction is open as opposed to all four seen on the short segment of the Pollocksville Bypass -
(https://i.ibb.co/QjR7cHx/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Wetlands-South-Of-White-Oak-River-Maysville-March2019.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/7Cw12Gn/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-White-Oak-River-Maysville-March2019.png)

Maysville Bypass southern tie in -
(https://i.ibb.co/DLpSh7H/US-17-Maysville-Bypass-Southern-Tie-In-Maysville-March2019.png)


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 28, 2019, 05:44:01 PM
Google Maps still has the old imagery. I wonder how long it'll take to update there...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 29, 2019, 01:59:00 PM
TOO LONG!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 29, 2019, 11:38:05 PM
Google Maps still has the old imagery. I wonder how long it'll take to update there...

2220. lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 30, 2019, 10:32:47 AM
Google Maps still has the old imagery. I wonder how long it'll take to update there...

2220. lol.
More like the 26th century! :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 01, 2019, 05:30:33 PM
Asheville is still rockin' imagery from 2015 in Google.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 01, 2019, 07:49:40 PM
Speaking of Google, I’ve noticed that some of the satellite images on the Google Maps app on my iPhone hasn’t caught up to those seen on the desktop version.

For example, the satellite image of the US-117/O’Berry Road interchange in Dudley on the app still shows an old image of it as an intersection before the interchange conversion. Using the desktop version shows the completed interchange and also shows the current construction of an interchange further south at Country Club Road.

My Google Maps app is up to date. What gives?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 02, 2019, 11:51:04 PM
Is there a reason why the freeway part of Wade Avenue through Cary is not given an interstate designation being it now connects two interstates and was a long time ago the actual I-40 until the state extended it east to Wilmington?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 03, 2019, 01:16:20 AM
Is there a reason why the freeway part of Wade Avenue through Cary is not given an interstate designation being it now connects two interstates and was a long time ago the actual I-40 until the state extended it east to Wilmington?

A 2nd question about this:  was the former I-40/Wade Avenue constructed with chargeable Interstate funds?  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 03, 2019, 01:57:26 AM
Could be that the city of Raleigh owns that stretch of freeway now, since I-40 was taken off of it.  Similar to Sam Cooper Blvd. in Memphis.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on May 03, 2019, 06:53:30 AM
It's state maintained.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on May 03, 2019, 12:53:33 PM
I really don't see the need in the Wade Ave freeway becoming an interstate. The "TO 440" and "TO 40 West" signage is more than adequate here. Not to mention NC already has enough fucking interstate designations  :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 03, 2019, 12:59:14 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-03-i-95-guardrail-work-johnston-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-03-i-95-guardrail-work-johnston-county.aspx)

Quote
SMITHFIELD — Drivers on Interstate 95 in Johnston County will encounter overnight lane reductions starting this month and lasting through much of this year to allow contract workers to safely upgrade the guardrails and drainage systems in the grassy median.

The project stretches 17 miles, between mile marker 81 (the I-40 Benson exit) and mile marker 98. From mid-May until November, drivers in both directions will encounter occasional sections reduced to one lane after 8 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and after 10 p.m. on the weekends.

The lanes will be reopened by 7 each morning.

The improvements will include replacing the cable-guide rail and guard rail systems, which are nearing their lifespan. Some guardrail and drainage boxes along the outside shoulders will be repaired or upgraded, too.

Fred Smith Co. of Raleigh will do the work, after the N.C. Department of Transportation awarded a $2.3 million contract last month.

Motorists should be alert when approaching the work zone, obey the posted speed limit and allow extra time to reach their destinations.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 03, 2019, 02:16:51 PM
There'd be a riot if they tried to remove the entry and exit point from PNC and Carter-Finley.

There are plans to widen that stretch next decade, plus the interchange modification with I-440 coming up. Who knows what will happen after that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 03, 2019, 02:20:19 PM
There'd be a riot if they tried to remove the entry and exit point from PNC and Carter-Finley.

There are plans to widen that stretch next decade, plus the interchange modification with I-440 coming up. Who knows what will happen after that.

Isn’t that entry/exit point the only thing keeping that stretch of Wade from meeting current interstate standards?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on May 03, 2019, 04:40:20 PM
There'd be a riot if they tried to remove the entry and exit point from PNC and Carter-Finley.

There are plans to widen that stretch next decade, plus the interchange modification with I-440 coming up. Who knows what will happen after that.

Isn’t that entry/exit point the only thing keeping that stretch of Wade from meeting current interstate standards?

It has an inadequate interchange with I-440 at the east end of the freeway (diamond with one loop ramp EB Wade to EB 440).

But there is a more recent precedent for having a temporary interstate access like the Carter-Finley parking lot access.  Back in the early 2000’s, after the first Bonnaroo concert weekend in Manchester, TN, TDOT added a temporary gated access point from the Bonnaroo field to I-24 west.  Officially TDOT calls it “Temporary Exit 112” .  All traffic egressing from the property after the show is over on Sunday night that is bound for Nashville is routed through this access point to I-24 west.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 03, 2019, 05:57:21 PM
Is there a reason why the freeway part of Wade Avenue through Cary is not given an interstate designation being it now connects two interstates and was a long time ago the actual I-40 until the state extended it east to Wilmington?

A 2nd question about this:  was the former I-40/Wade Avenue constructed with chargeable Interstate funds?  :confused:

Doesn't seem likely.  Wade Ave extension was on the 1962 Wake County map (well before I-40 was approved to extend east of Greensboro) as a FAP designated dotted line that was originally going to be a freeway for NC 54 to use.  The study of how to get I-40 from I-85 to Raleigh in the late 60s chose a large portion of the NC 54 freeway corridor.

In the 1968 Wake County map, it shows the dotted line as FAI for the parts that were to become I-40 and FAP for what is now the Wade Ave extension.

In the 1972 Wake County map, it shows the Wade Ave extension freeway under construction as well as I-40 west of there, with a FAI dotted line where I-40 east would run.  The Wade Ave segment was still shown as FAP and had no numerical designation while further west there were I-40 shields.

I haven't been able to locate when SR 1728 was assigned to the Wade Ave extension, which was done sometime after 1980.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 03, 2019, 07:04:00 PM
I really don't see the need in the Wade Ave freeway becoming an interstate. The "TO 440" and "TO 40 West" signage is more than adequate here. Not to mention NC already has enough fucking interstate designations  :spin:
It could at least have a primary highway number; currently it's classed as a secondary highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 03, 2019, 10:42:11 PM
I-440 at Wade Avenue is not up to interstate standards there, but it is signed as interstate and not future interstate.  I do not see why the Wade Avenue (or even why US 52 from Winston- Salem to Mount Airy for I-74 either) can't be signed as interstate as well.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 04, 2019, 03:29:28 AM
Not every freeway has to have a posted number, even though some state DOT's may have an internal number for that freeway.  Look at the Parkway system in Kentucky.  Yes, they are signed with the Parkway name, but without a posted number.  Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does have an unposted internal number (in the 9000's) for each one, though.

US 52 isn't close to modern Interstate standards right now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 04, 2019, 11:47:59 AM
Final Beltline widening plans will be presented at Raleigh transportation fair (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article229989124.html) (along with multiple other projects (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/2019-05-06-raleigh-projects-open-house.aspx))

(https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/jl0ih8/picture230002684/alternates/FREE_1140/NCDOT%20Wade%20Avenue%20Beltline%20plan)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 04, 2019, 02:05:57 PM
Final Beltline widening plans will be presented at Raleigh transportation fair (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article229989124.html) (along with multiple other projects (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/2019-05-06-raleigh-projects-open-house.aspx))

(https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/jl0ih8/picture230002684/alternates/FREE_1140/NCDOT%20Wade%20Avenue%20Beltline%20plan)


Interesting design for the Wade Ave. interchange. Either way, I am glad they're addressing that stretch of I-440. It was AWFUL when I drove on that part of the beltline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 02:55:45 PM
I agree that the Wade Ave doesn't need an Interstate designation, but if one were ever assigned, it would probably be numbered Interstate 340.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 04, 2019, 03:06:10 PM
So much discussion about an interstate designation for the 2-mile Wade Ave, but what about an I-x40 for the 40 miles of US-1 south of I-40? Or an I-440 extension?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 04, 2019, 03:16:26 PM
I'd make US 1 an extension of Interstate 87, at least to US 421. But since that won't happen anytime soon, this is a Fictional Highways proposal.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 04, 2019, 04:13:36 PM
So much discussion about an interstate designation for the 2-mile Wade Ave, but what about an I-x40 for the 40 miles of US-1 south of I-40? Or an I-440 extension?

NCDOT tried to get that stretch of US-1 designated as I-140 in 1999, but AASHTO rejected it and NCDOT never tried again. As we all know, I-140 was later assigned to the Wilmington Bypass.

The Ghostbuster does have a good point, though. If US-1 ever became an interstate south of Raleigh, an extension of I-87 to I-73/74 at Rockingham would make the most sense. At least then I-87 would actually be more N/S.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2019, 07:05:25 PM
Not every freeway has to have a posted number, even though some state DOT's may have an internal number for that freeway.  Look at the Parkway system in Kentucky.  Yes, they are signed with the Parkway name, but without a posted number.  Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does have an unposted internal number (in the 9000's) for each one, though.
Posted route numbers are helpful for drivers not familiar with the area. That's my argument for a number on Wade Avenue. Is there any possible argument for why it should not have a number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 04, 2019, 08:33:24 PM
Pull an Elgin-O'hare and sign it with "Wade Ave" shields. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 04, 2019, 10:53:27 PM
Not every freeway has to have a posted number, even though some state DOT's may have an internal number for that freeway.  Look at the Parkway system in Kentucky.  Yes, they are signed with the Parkway name, but without a posted number.  Kentucky Transportation Cabinet does have an unposted internal number (in the 9000's) for each one, though.

US 52 isn't close to modern Interstate standards right now.
And I-440 isn't?  The part near Cary and around Wade Avenue is still old school freeway when it was only an upgrade of US 1 in the 1960's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 07, 2019, 04:45:45 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on May 9 in Cary to discuss rebuilding the I-40/I-440/US-1 interchange, as well as widening I-40 between that interchange and Lake Wheeler Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-440-widening-interchange-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-440-widening-interchange-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 07, 2019, 05:04:42 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on May 9 in Cary to discuss rebuilding the I-40/I-440/US-1 interchange, as well as widening I-40 between that interchange and Lake Wheeler Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-440-widening-interchange-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-440-widening-interchange-meeting.aspx)

Good to see that all three concepts include two flyovers for the NB-to-WB and WB-to-SB movements. I remember seeing older concepts with just one flyover, indicating any multi-flyover design was dropped, but I could be misremembering that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 07, 2019, 07:08:31 PM
All lanes of I-40 near the TN state line will open early Wednesday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-slide-all-lanes-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-07-i-40-slide-all-lanes-open.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: slorydn1 on May 08, 2019, 02:48:51 AM
US-17 New Bern Bypass is now open again, finally. All southbound traffic is being shunted to the new exit ramp down to the existing stoplight at US-17 Business at the Craven/Jones County line, but you can definitely see the progress being made on the bypass heading down into Jones County both carriage ways are paved at that point down as far as I can see from the new overpass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 08, 2019, 06:40:28 AM
US-17 New Bern Bypass is now open again, finally. All southbound traffic is being shunted to the new exit ramp down to the existing stoplight at US-17 Business at the Craven/Jones County line, but you can definitely see the progress being made on the bypass heading down into Jones County both carriage ways are paved at that point down as far as I can see from the new overpass.
Planning to head down that way hopefully this weekend to see the progress.

Hopefully the new bypass is opened by the end of the year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on May 08, 2019, 10:38:58 AM
US-17 New Bern Bypass is now open again, finally. All southbound traffic is being shunted to the new exit ramp down to the existing stoplight at US-17 Business at the Craven/Jones County line, but you can definitely see the progress being made on the bypass heading down into Jones County both carriage ways are paved at that point down as far as I can see from the new overpass.
Planning to head down that way hopefully this weekend to see the progress.

Hopefully the new bypass is opened by the end of the year.

I've heard the completion date will be sometime in November or December this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 08, 2019, 05:59:54 PM
Due to the ongoing I-40 widening project in Wake & Johnston counties, the East Garner Road bridge over I-40 will close for a year, beginning May 29.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-08-year-long-closure-east-garner-road.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-08-year-long-closure-east-garner-road.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 09, 2019, 10:42:34 AM
The design build contractor for the I-440 widening in Raleigh has come up with a creative and economical design for the I-440/Wade interchange that unfortunately has a hideous weave. How can this be acceptable? Did the NCDOT not put stringent enough requirements in the contract, and now the contractor has proposed something awful that meets the letter of the law, in order to go fishing for extra money from change orders?

If they would separate the movements and remove the weave, I would be happy with this design. I don't think Wade-440 needs 55mph ramps.

(https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/jl0ih8/picture230002684/alternates/FREE_1140/NCDOT%20Wade%20Avenue%20Beltline%20plan)

PS: Missed that y'all talked about this already on the previous page, but I didn't see anybody mention the awful weave. It's not a cloverleaf but it's still a weave - a left-exit weave at that - so is it really even any better?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 09, 2019, 01:05:03 PM
The left merge onto WB Wade Avenue from 440 looks to be signalized, as both the ramp and Wade are two lanes and Wade is still two lanes after the merge, not four.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 09, 2019, 05:00:38 PM
The left merge onto WB Wade Avenue from 440 looks to be signalized, as both the ramp and Wade are two lanes and Wade is still two lanes after the merge, not four.
That's correct I believe. It's essentially one side of a diverging diamond.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 09, 2019, 05:21:58 PM
I don't like the curve for the ramp from inbound Wade to 440 east. That's the choke point now, and the new ramp has the tightest radius of all the proposed ramps. The design speed for that is probably something like 40 mph, so it's still going to bog down every afternoon, even with two lanes. I liked the flyover (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-improvements/Documents/U-2719_Hillsboro_Wade_1_Flyover_2017.pdf) better, but of course that's more expensive and has more impact.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 09, 2019, 05:28:14 PM
Also, no one has mentioned the upcoming meeting (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5301-2019-05-14.aspx) for the expressway/superstreet conversion and widening of US 64 in Apex west of US 1. I believe they've refined the design a bit after receiving some negative feedback on earlier proposals/alternatives.

Map 1 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/autopark-us-1-map.pdf)
Map 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/laura-duncan-lake-pine-map.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: JoeP on May 09, 2019, 05:34:11 PM
Quote
It's all bogus, that's simply it

what ignorance.

Wow.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 09, 2019, 05:37:26 PM
Also, no one has mentioned the upcoming meeting (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5301-2019-05-14.aspx) for the expressway/superstreet conversion and widening of US 64 in Apex west of US 1. I believe they've refined the design a bit after receiving some negative feedback on earlier proposals/alternatives.

Map 1 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/autopark-us-1-map.pdf)
Map 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/laura-duncan-lake-pine-map.pdf)
Thank god they didn't select those other interchange designs. Traditional is the way to go. It appears half of the corridor will become a freeway, while the other part will be a high-speed superstreet. It'd be nice if the whole thing could be converted to freeway, but it will function fine how it is proposed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 09, 2019, 10:40:42 PM
Also, no one has mentioned the upcoming meeting (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5301-2019-05-14.aspx) for the expressway/superstreet conversion and widening of US 64 in Apex west of US 1. I believe they've refined the design a bit after receiving some negative feedback on earlier proposals/alternatives.

Map 1 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/autopark-us-1-map.pdf)
Map 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-apex-cary/Documents/laura-duncan-lake-pine-map.pdf)
Thank god they didn't select those other interchange designs. Traditional is the way to go. It appears half of the corridor will become a freeway, while the other part will be a high-speed superstreet. It'd be nice if the whole thing could be converted to freeway, but it will function fine how it is proposed.
They are *so* close to a full freeway (literally one additional grade separation could make it work) that I am pretty disappointed they didn't go for it. The superstreet may be fine for today's traffic, but with all the development in Chatham Park, I bet it won't be 5 years before it starts backing up badly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 10, 2019, 12:06:00 AM
A public meeting is being held in Lumberton on August 28 to discuss rebuilding the I-95/Carthage Road interchange (Exit 19).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx)
I saw nothing on this, so what was decided? Personally, I'm not a fan, especially with the roundabout at the northbound off and on ramps. But I do like the idea of realigning Lackey Street on the other side of all those motels and restaurants. I think this would've been a good idea for the frontage road on the northwest corner of I-75 and FL 50, had FDOT decided to build a loop ramp at the interchange.


For the record, when I went through Lumberton back in April there was a giant traffic jam, because everybody was being detoured off of I-95 at Exit 17 (NC 72) to get around the inspection of the bridge over that railroad line north of the interchange.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 10, 2019, 12:38:24 AM
A public meeting is being held in Lumberton on August 28 to discuss rebuilding the I-95/Carthage Road interchange (Exit 19).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx)
I saw nothing on this, so what was decided? Personally, I'm not a fan, especially with the roundabout at the northbound off and on ramps. But I do like the idea of realigning Lackey Street on the other side of all those motels and restaurants. I think this would've been a good idea for the frontage road on the northwest corner of I-75 and FL 50, had FDOT decided to build a loop ramp at the interchange.


For the record, when I went through Lumberton back in April there was a giant traffic jam, because everybody was being detoured off of I-95 at Exit 17 (NC 72) to get around the inspection of the bridge over that railroad line north of the interchange.
CB radios used to be good for getting information like that ahead of the jam.  Nowadays everyone just pulls an app and follows GPS save a few folks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 09:02:58 AM
A public meeting is being held in Lumberton on August 28 to discuss rebuilding the I-95/Carthage Road interchange (Exit 19).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-08-20-lumberton-i-95-exit-19-open-house.aspx)
I saw nothing on this, so what was decided? Personally, I'm not a fan, especially with the roundabout at the northbound off and on ramps. But I do like the idea of realigning Lackey Street on the other side of all those motels and restaurants. I think this would've been a good idea for the frontage road on the northwest corner of I-75 and FL 50, had FDOT decided to build a loop ramp at the interchange.


For the record, when I went through Lumberton back in April there was a giant traffic jam, because everybody was being detoured off of I-95 at Exit 17 (NC 72) to get around the inspection of the bridge over that railroad line north of the interchange.

There’s been no mention of it since...or at least none that I’m aware of.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 10, 2019, 07:21:05 PM
Progress update on the Business 40 project in Winston-Salem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-marshall-street-bridge-closure-winston-salem.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-10-marshall-street-bridge-closure-winston-salem.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 11, 2019, 04:45:33 PM
I may have already asked this question (I can't remember, there are so many pages), if I have and its been answered already, I apologize. My question being: once Business 40 in Winston-Salem is decommissioned, will the existing exit numbers on Business remain the same or will they be renumbered to correspond to US 421's mileage? I'll try hard in the future not to ask the same question more than once.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 11, 2019, 10:28:34 PM
I may have already asked this question (I can't remember, there are so many pages), if I have and its been answered already, I apologize. My question being: once Business 40 in Winston-Salem is decommissioned, will the existing exit numbers on Business remain the same or will they be renumbered to correspond to US 421's mileage? I'll try hard in the future not to ask the same question more than once.
I asked this question as a comment on the NCDOT Business 40 improvements Facebook page a couple months ago when they put up a post to answer a frequent a question they get about what's going to happen to all the removed Business 40 signs (it's up to the contractor). Never got an answer. However, another NCDOT employee who posts there often said he believes the numbers will be changed to those based on US 421 mileage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 13, 2019, 01:16:45 PM
Two public meetings to mention.

The first meeting is tomorrow in Apex to discuss improvements to US-64 between US-1 in Cary and Laura Duncan Road in Apex.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx)

The second is on May 16 in Supply in Brunswick County to discuss converting the US-17/NC-211 intersection into an interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 14, 2019, 03:39:25 AM
Two public meetings to mention.

The first meeting is tomorrow in Apex to discuss improvements to US-64 between US-1 in Cary and Laura Duncan Road in Apex.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx)

The second is on May 16 in Supply in Brunswick County to discuss converting the US-17/NC-211 intersection into an interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx)

Unfortunately, the design alternatives for the interchange aren't available for preview.  It'll be interesting to see if a free-flow connection from NB US 17 to NB NC 211 (and vice-versa) is among the options -- which may be an indicator as to NCDOT's plans per the original I-74 corridor concept -- whether that will be honored in the observance or the breach! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 14, 2019, 07:14:22 AM

Unfortunately, the design alternatives for the interchange aren't available for preview.  It'll be interesting to see if a free-flow connection from NB US 17 to NB NC 211 (and vice-versa) is among the options -- which may be an indicator as to NCDOT's plans per the original I-74 corridor concept -- whether that will be honored in the observance or the breach!

One alternative (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf), a sort-of diamond interchange plus one loop on-ramp to SB US 17. I'm not sure how the locals are going to react to losing Bojangles', Hardee's AND McDonald's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 14, 2019, 08:02:42 AM
^ Probably cheaper to buy those properties out than to build the retaining walls and drainage basins necessary for a tight diamond.  And even if they did go with a tight diamond to reduce right-of-way needs, McD's and Bojangles would need some sort of backage road for access.

Traffic volumes on 17 are very much in the range of warranting limited access and interchanges.  While I can sympathize with the businesses in the way, they should not stand in the way of warranted roadway improvements.  There also appears to be nearby locations that those restaurants could be relocated to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on May 14, 2019, 09:16:02 AM
Two public meetings to mention.

The first meeting is tomorrow in Apex to discuss improvements to US-64 between US-1 in Cary and Laura Duncan Road in Apex.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-us-64-apex-public-meeting.aspx)

The second is on May 16 in Supply in Brunswick County to discuss converting the US-17/NC-211 intersection into an interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-13-brunswick-county-interchange-public-meeting.aspx)

What's the point of doing the Apex project if the entire thing isn't gonna be limited access? Sure Luara Duncan on west will be limited access but going back east towards Hwy 1 seems to just be some roadway improvement and new stoplights. They should look at how NCDOT is gonna do James City and do that for that end of the project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 14, 2019, 10:32:07 AM
^ Probably cheaper to buy those properties out than to build the retaining walls and drainage basins necessary for a tight diamond.  And even if they did go with a tight diamond to reduce right-of-way needs, McD's and Bojangles would need some sort of backage road for access.

Traffic volumes on 17 are very much in the range of warranting limited access and interchanges.  While I can sympathize with the businesses in the way, they should not stand in the way of warranted roadway improvements.  There also appears to be nearby locations that those restaurants could be relocated to.
Sounds like NCDOT needs to find another route or just leave it alone in this case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on May 14, 2019, 11:20:06 AM
What's the point of doing the Apex project if the entire thing isn't gonna be limited access? Sure Luara Duncan on west will be limited access but going back east towards Hwy 1 seems to just be some roadway improvement and new stoplights. They should look at how NCDOT is gonna do James City and do that for that end of the project.
While I agree that this needs to be a full freeway, copying James City would be a nonstarter here.

They actually proposed almost exactly that back in 2008. Frontage roads, the whole nine yards. The costs were insane and the impacts were immense. Whereas James City already has existing frontage roads and is fronted almost entirely by commercial developement, 64 in Apex has lots of really expensive homes that back up to the highway and no existing frontage roads. Basically they got booed off the stage. By going 'too big' early in the study process, they ran into huge backlash.

There was a big counter movement called "Save 64" to have US 64 declared a "business route", have the speed limit dropped to 45, add sidewalks, and reroute through traffic onto NC540 an US1.

Thankfully, at the time, NCDOT just backed off for a decade and the protest died down.

This proposal gets closer to the right solution than they ever were before. The bridge at Edinburgh Dr is great. They need to put another bridge like it at Chalon and add a couple square loops ramps, then the whole superstreet thing can be dropped. Compared to Lake Pine and Laura Duncan, Edinburgh and especially Chalon are not very busy at all, so square loop configurations would be just fine.

The only remaining traffic light after that is the one where eastbound US 64 traffic has to stop for westbound Tryon Road traffic turning left onto US1 south. There's no room to put in a cloverleaf, so the only way to solve it is probably a big flyover that also has to cross the sensitive Swift Creek floodplain. They probably don't have the budget to do that, so that light had to stay. And once you have one stoplight, adding a few more in a superstreet configuration synchronized with that one doesn't reduce capacity by that much.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 14, 2019, 05:10:58 PM
^ Probably cheaper to buy those properties out than to build the retaining walls and drainage basins necessary for a tight diamond.  And even if they did go with a tight diamond to reduce right-of-way needs, McD's and Bojangles would need some sort of backage road for access.

Traffic volumes on 17 are very much in the range of warranting limited access and interchanges.  While I can sympathize with the businesses in the way, they should not stand in the way of warranted roadway improvements.  There also appears to be nearby locations that those restaurants could be relocated to.
Sounds like NCDOT needs to find another route or just leave it alone in this case.
I don't see why an interchange is needed on the current route. That stretch needs a full relocation, similar to the proposed Carolina Bays Pkwy south of this location, all the way to Wilmington. Any interchange should be on that new freeway, not the existing route. Until any freeway gets built, interim solutions should be constructed instead.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 14, 2019, 06:05:27 PM
^ Probably cheaper to buy those properties out than to build the retaining walls and drainage basins necessary for a tight diamond.  And even if they did go with a tight diamond to reduce right-of-way needs, McD's and Bojangles would need some sort of backage road for access.

Traffic volumes on 17 are very much in the range of warranting limited access and interchanges.  While I can sympathize with the businesses in the way, they should not stand in the way of warranted roadway improvements.  There also appears to be nearby locations that those restaurants could be relocated to.
Sounds like NCDOT needs to find another route or just leave it alone in this case.
I don't see why an interchange is needed on the current route. That stretch needs a full relocation, similar to the proposed Carolina Bays Pkwy south of this location, all the way to Wilmington. Any interchange should be on that new freeway, not the existing route. Until any freeway gets built, interim solutions should be constructed instead.
I agree. Building this interchange is proof that NCDOT is not thinking of converting all of US 17 to a freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 15, 2019, 10:54:20 AM
Two public meetings are being held (May 21 in Belmont, May 22 in Gastonia) to discuss proposed improvements to I-85 in Gaston County between NC-273 and US-321.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-15-gaston-county-public-meetings.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-15-gaston-county-public-meetings.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 15, 2019, 04:46:24 PM
Two public meetings are being held (May 21 in Belmont, May 22 in Gastonia) to discuss proposed improvements to I-85 in Gaston County between NC-273 and US-321.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-15-gaston-county-public-meetings.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-15-gaston-county-public-meetings.aspx)
Finally this is getting widened. It needs to be 6-laned all the way to meet SCDOT's widening after this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 15, 2019, 05:23:32 PM
Based on the segment specified, it will be 6 lanes going to 8 (or more)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 15, 2019, 06:13:29 PM
The last I saw was eight lanes to 74 and six lanes to the state line. There used to be three separate projects for all of those segments. The 321/74/SC segments were combined into one project (I-5985) for planning/environmental study purposes, but separate sections (A and B) for ranking and funding. Construction is estimated for 2028 in the draft STIP for those sections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 15, 2019, 08:53:57 PM
I was just noting that the meeting specified US321 to NC 273, Which is all 6 lanes now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 08:55:17 AM
I see that Google Maps satellite image is now showing the C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension project in Kinston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on May 16, 2019, 10:08:38 AM
I see that Google Maps satellite image is now showing the C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension project in Kinston.

It also shows the Maysville 17 By-Pass impressively.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on May 16, 2019, 10:28:13 AM
I see that Google Maps satellite image is now showing the C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension project in Kinston.

It also shows the Maysville 17 By-Pass impressively.
Also new is the NC 11 bypass construction of Greenville, Winterville and Ayden. 

I'm disappointed that the East End connector in Durham isn't shown. 

Also with the C.F. Harvey Parkway are they making an interchange with NC 58?  It looks like where the parkway crosses NC 58 is moving slightly north of the current intersection.  That's what made me wonder about that. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 10:36:11 AM
I see that Google Maps satellite image is now showing the C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension project in Kinston.

It also shows the Maysville 17 By-Pass impressively.
Also with the C.F. Harvey Parkway are they making an interchange with NC 58?  It looks like where the parkway crosses NC 58 is moving slightly north of the current intersection.  That's what made me wonder about that.

Yes and IIRC, the extension is being built to interstate standards. The Greenville SW Bypass definitely is.

For the past few years, Kinston and Greenvile had been pushing for the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel to become a future interstate in order to provide interstate access to the Port of Virginia (via I-87) for the Global TransPark and Greenville, but so far, no dice. There was an attempt to make it happen when the Eastern NC Gateway Act was proposed in Congress in 2016, but it didn’t get anywhere since it was an election year. No further attempt has been made...yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 11:15:28 AM
Speaking of the Greenville SW Bypass...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-pitt-county-interchange-construction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-pitt-county-interchange-construction.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — As the N.C. Department of Transportation continues with construction on the Southwest Bypass project​, a Pitt County interchange will close for one month starting next week.

Beginning at 7 a.m. on May 20, both lanes of U.S. 264 West will be closed. Crews will replace the approach slabs for the bridge at the Greenville interchange. The project is expected to take one month.

Drivers heading west on U.S. 264 to Stantonsburg Road will instead be detoured to Exit 73A and head towards Mozingo Road, Exit 71. They will exit at that location, turn left at the end of the ramp, cross over U.S. 264 and turn left onto U.S. 264 East toward Stantonsburg Road.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and approach the work zone with caution.

​For real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on social media.​
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 04:41:15 PM
Yes and IIRC, the extension is being built to interstate standards.
That's correct, the extension is built to full interstate standards, having 12 foot lanes, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 foot right shoulder, and a 46 foot grassy median. The parkway is elevated and bridges over every cross road as well.

Here's a great Google My Maps map of how it will look when completed, courtesy of NCDOT - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1XyRSHr6vK823Kwprk3u22c5Jpww&ll=35.32919594920824%2C-77.53231807840359&z=14

You can overlay it with the aerial imagery, and it matches perfectly where the construction is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2019, 07:54:35 PM
A public meeting is being held on May 21 in Colfax regarding improvements to the Sandy Ridge Road interchange on I-40.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-public-meeting-guilford-county-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-public-meeting-guilford-county-interchange.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 16, 2019, 09:21:02 PM
Yes and IIRC, the extension is being built to interstate standards.
That's correct, the extension is built to full interstate standards, having 12 foot lanes, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 foot right shoulder, and a 46 foot grassy median. The parkway is elevated and bridges over every cross road as well.

Here's a great Google My Maps map of how it will look when completed, courtesy of NCDOT - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1XyRSHr6vK823Kwprk3u22c5Jpww&ll=35.32919594920824%2C-77.53231807840359&z=14

You can overlay it with the aerial imagery, and it matches perfectly where the construction is.

Wow, that's really cool!

Is the northern/eastern end designed the way it is in anticipation of a possible future eastern/southern extension around the east side of Kinston? I'm not sure why else they'd design it the way it's being built instead of at minimum a trumpet, if not something better favoring movements to/from the north.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2019, 09:30:16 PM
Yes and IIRC, the extension is being built to interstate standards.
That's correct, the extension is built to full interstate standards, having 12 foot lanes, 4 foot left shoulder, 10 foot right shoulder, and a 46 foot grassy median. The parkway is elevated and bridges over every cross road as well.

Here's a great Google My Maps map of how it will look when completed, courtesy of NCDOT - https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1XyRSHr6vK823Kwprk3u22c5Jpww&ll=35.32919594920824%2C-77.53231807840359&z=14

You can overlay it with the aerial imagery, and it matches perfectly where the construction is.

Wow, that's really cool!

Is the northern/eastern end designed the way it is in anticipation of a possible future eastern/southern extension around the east side of Kinston? I'm not sure why else they'd design it the way it's being built instead of at minimum a trumpet, if not something better favoring movements to/from the north.
I had wondered that too, but looking at the design, the overpasses are single lane with 10 foot shoulder, no really wide 30 foot left shoulder hinting a future expansion, also the directional ramps in the northern quadrant are not designed to accommodate a full cloverleaf design.

Probably just an alternative to a trumpet because of the smaller footprint.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 17, 2019, 08:36:08 AM
CB radios used to be good for getting information like that ahead of the jam.  Nowadays everyone just pulls an app and follows GPS save a few folks.
Which is great if you have internet access in your car. Otherwise, forget it. I've actually considered getting a CB radio in more recent times, but mainly I've been considering it, so I could contact truckers and tell them I'm staying out of their way so they can move in my lanes and things like that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 17, 2019, 09:56:24 AM
Speaking of the Greenville SW Bypass...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-pitt-county-interchange-construction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-16-pitt-county-interchange-construction.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — As the N.C. Department of Transportation continues with construction on the Southwest Bypass project​, a Pitt County interchange will close for one month starting next week.

Beginning at 7 a.m. on May 20, both lanes of U.S. 264 West will be closed. Crews will replace the approach slabs for the bridge at the Greenville interchange. The project is expected to take one month.

Drivers heading west on U.S. 264 to Stantonsburg Road will instead be detoured to Exit 73A and head towards Mozingo Road, Exit 71. They will exit at that location, turn left at the end of the ramp, cross over U.S. 264 and turn left onto U.S. 264 East toward Stantonsburg Road.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and approach the work zone with caution.

​For real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on social media.​

Another upcoming closure related to the bypass construction.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 17, 2019, 10:28:02 AM
For the past few years, Kinston and Greenvile had been pushing for the NC-11/US-13 corridor between Kinston and Bethel to become a future interstate in order to provide interstate access to the Port of Virginia (via I-87) for the Global TransPark and Greenville, but so far, no dice. There was an attempt to make it happen when the Eastern NC Gateway Act was proposed in Congress in 2016, but it didn’t get anywhere since it was an election year. No further attempt has been made...yet.

From a tidbit in this morning’s article, they’re still pushing for it.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/05/17/Reduced-congestion-expanded-greenways-among-proposed-transportation-projects.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/05/17/Reduced-congestion-expanded-greenways-among-proposed-transportation-projects.html)

Quote
Another large project is the conversion of N.C. 11 into an interstate-quality highway connecting U.S. 64 to C.F. Harvey Parkway in Kinston, Purtle said.

“It’s an important corridor because it will connect all three future interstates in eastern North Carolina, I-42 (currently U.S. 70), I-87 (currently U.S. 64) and I-587 (currently U.S. 264),”  Purtle said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 17, 2019, 04:45:32 PM
Upcoming lane closures on US-70 in Havelock due to the Slocum Gate project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-craven-county-bridge-girder-installation.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-craven-county-bridge-girder-installation.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 18, 2019, 02:05:59 PM
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1128023939899383808
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D6eLxxnWsAIJIw0.jpg)

First image is of the I-485 / I-85 northern interchange & I-485 northern extension under construction sometime about 2012 - 2014 in Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 19, 2019, 07:58:08 AM
An article on all of the upcoming projects in Wayne County.

https://www.newsargus.com/news/road-projects-set-to-change-landscape/article_baeb81dc-79dc-11e9-92ce-976d463860d2.html (https://www.newsargus.com/news/road-projects-set-to-change-landscape/article_baeb81dc-79dc-11e9-92ce-976d463860d2.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 19, 2019, 08:50:46 AM
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1128023939899383808
[picture]

First image is of the I-485 / I-85 northern interchange & I-485 northern extension under construction sometime about 2012 - 2014 in Charlotte.

Just out of curiosity, since I had never seen the original plan, I looked up the original design for the interchange. They included grading for extra ramps when they first tied this section of I-485 into the trumpet, though the final ramps as built don't really line up with the grading. I found this in a PDF from 2014 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/construction/Structural%20Design%20AGCDOT%20Joint%20Bridge%20Design%20Commi/Project%20Spotlight%20-%20%20I-485%20I-85%20Interchange%20Charlotte.pdf) about the project:

(https://i.imgur.com/EMlc2xD.png)

That weird loop ramp weave solution definitely explains the odd alignment of the partial loop grading that didn't seem to be in the right place to merge directly into the mainline.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 20, 2019, 07:47:21 AM
The latest regarding the lawsuit over Greenville’s red light cameras.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/05/20/Red-light-camera-suit-goes-to-court.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/05/20/Red-light-camera-suit-goes-to-court.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2019, 12:52:34 PM
Upcoming lane closures on US-70 in Havelock due to the Slocum Gate project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-craven-county-bridge-girder-installation.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-04-26-craven-county-bridge-girder-installation.aspx)

Update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 23, 2019, 02:45:01 PM
Another Business 40 update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-23-us-40-marshall-street-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-23-us-40-marshall-street-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 09:23:23 AM
Another upcoming road closure related to the Greenville Southwest Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 11:28:43 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE - A Jones County road will close for about 24 hours next week as construction crews continue work to tie into the existing U.S. 17 Bypass.

Ten Mile Fork Road, near U.S. 17, will close between 6 p.m. May 28 and 7 p.m. May 29. The contractor will pour the concrete deck for the bridge over the Pollocksville road.

Traffic will be detoured onto Scott Road, Oak Grove Road, Killis Murphy Road/ Loop Road and U.S. 17. Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and need to use caution when approaching the work zone.

The overall project is 16.2 miles long, starting south of Belgrade, and tying into the existing U.S. 17 New Bern Bypass. The contract for the project is $143.4 and it is expected to be finished late this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 03:14:59 PM
Upcoming lane closures on I-40 due to the I-40/I-77 interchange project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-interstate-40-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-interstate-40-improvements.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 04:06:59 PM
https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/ (https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 24, 2019, 05:42:08 PM
https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/ (https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/)
North Carolina is borrowing $300 million a year for ten years; that's $3 billion for new infrastructure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 24, 2019, 06:02:30 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE - A Jones County road will close for about 24 hours next week as construction crews continue work to tie into the existing U.S. 17 Bypass.

Ten Mile Fork Road, near U.S. 17, will close between 6 p.m. May 28 and 7 p.m. May 29. The contractor will pour the concrete deck for the bridge over the Pollocksville road.

Traffic will be detoured onto Scott Road, Oak Grove Road, Killis Murphy Road/ Loop Road and U.S. 17. Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and need to use caution when approaching the work zone.

The overall project is 16.2 miles long, starting south of Belgrade, and tying into the existing U.S. 17 New Bern Bypass. The contract for the project is $143.4 and it is expected to be finished late this year.

Another upcoming road closure related to this project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-24-jones-county-goshen-road-closure.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 24, 2019, 10:27:59 PM
https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/ (https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/)
North Carolina is borrowing $300 million a year for ten years; that's $3 billion for new infrastructure.

Is there a list of potential new projects this borrowing could result in?  I-40 in my area is in a world of hurt.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 25, 2019, 06:54:36 AM
https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/ (https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/)
North Carolina is borrowing $300 million a year for ten years; that's $3 billion for new infrastructure.

Is there a list of potential new projects this borrowing could result in?  I-40 in my area is in a world of hurt.

I’d like to know that, too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 25, 2019, 01:05:28 PM
^ I'd like to know how they plan on paying back that $3+B in bonds.  The article doesn't say.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 25, 2019, 02:56:28 PM
^ I'd like to know how they plan on paying back that $3+B in bonds.  The article doesn't say.
https://www.wral.com/north-carolina-elected-officials-sign-off-on-new-road-debt/18406769/
Quote
The bonds will be repaid through dedicated transportation revenues like gasoline taxes and vehicle sales taxes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 25, 2019, 10:00:30 PM
Sadly, that money goes very quickly. For example, the I-26 widening projects south of Asheville being let this year are estimated at $415.6 million, and that's not even the whole project. Half a billion dollars to widen less than 18 miles of interstate. The separate I-26 connector in Asheville is approaching a billion dollars on its own. I guess that's why we're having to borrow money....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 25, 2019, 10:03:59 PM
https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/ (https://www.wral.com/first-build-nc-transportation-bonds-cleared-for-market/18405883/)
North Carolina is borrowing $300 million a year for ten years; that's $3 billion for new infrastructure.

Is there a list of potential new projects this borrowing could result in?  I-40 in my area is in a world of hurt.

This 2018 article (https://www.carolinajournal.com/news-article/3-billion-transportation-bond-introduced-as-separate-bill/) about the law that enables this bond program suggests that there were not specific projects in mind for the $300M max per year authorization...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 26, 2019, 07:36:28 AM
Sadly, that money goes very quickly. For example, the I-26 widening projects south of Asheville being let this year are estimated at $415.6 million, and that's not even the whole project. Half a billion dollars to widen less than 18 miles of interstate. The separate I-26 connector in Asheville is approaching a billion dollars on its own. I guess that's why we're having to borrow money....

Not just borrowing, but tying up future gas tax revenue in paying off that borrowing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 26, 2019, 10:02:18 AM
If a recession we're to occur in the next 18 months, this could be a wise move.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2019, 10:00:04 AM
Construction update regarding the US-70 Slocum Gate project in Havelock.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2019, 03:22:17 PM
Construction update regarding the US-70 Slocum Gate project in Havelock.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-22-craven-county-bridge-girders-havelock.aspx)

More to this.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-bridge-girders-overnight.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-29-craven-county-bridge-girders-overnight.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 30, 2019, 08:36:32 AM
Going back to the discussion of the proposed interchange layout at 440 and Wade, I got email confirmation from NCDOT last week that they are indeed planning a traffic signal where the off-ramp from EB(NB?) 440 meets westbound Wade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 30, 2019, 01:12:55 PM
A contract to rehab I-85 in Rowan County was awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on May 30, 2019, 02:16:20 PM
A contract to rehab I-85 in Rowan County was awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx)


I swear they just can't let that highway be cone/construction free even for a day, lol, now this as they finish up on the widening up to the US 29 exit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2019, 07:24:28 AM
The deadline for choosing a preferred alternative for the Cape Fear Crossing has been pushed back to December.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-cape-fear-crossing-deadline-delayed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-cape-fear-crossing-deadline-delayed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on May 31, 2019, 10:00:49 AM
A contract to rehab I-85 in Rowan County was awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx)


I swear they just can't let that highway be cone/construction free even for a day, lol, now this as they finish up on the widening up to the US 29 exit.

Still not as bad as 77. 77's been under construction since the day it opened lol. Of course, it could be worse. It could be Atlanta.....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 10:11:37 AM
The deadline for choosing a preferred alternative for the Cape Fear Crossing has been pushed back to December.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-cape-fear-crossing-deadline-delayed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-cape-fear-crossing-deadline-delayed.aspx)

I hope they don't end up going with alternatives B T or Q. There should ultimately be a freeway connection from the bridge to the rest of the system (be it via I-140 or an eventually-upgraded US 74/76).

I know none of the alternatives for this project include a freeway upgrade for US 17 between I-140 and US 74/76, but is such an upgrade planned eventually?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on May 31, 2019, 11:36:13 AM
A contract to rehab I-85 in Rowan County was awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-30-rowan-county-i-85-road-rehab.aspx)


I swear they just can't let that highway be cone/construction free even for a day, lol, now this as they finish up on the widening up to the US 29 exit.

Still not as bad as 77. 77's been under construction since the day it opened lol. Of course, it could be worse. It could be Atlanta.....

That is very true. I live on I-77 smack dab in the middle of the Express Lanes project, whichhhhh btw, an unofficial whisper is that the Northern Segment *might* open by Monday AM 06/03. Also, I was at the customer service center this morning in Charlotte, and they confirmed a suspicion of mine, that the 6 month probationary period of "fixed pricing" will only be for the first segment opening. In other words, using 6/3 as our example, on 12/3 it will be variable pricing on the entire project, not just segment by segment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2019, 04:49:59 PM
I hope they don't end up going with alternatives B or Q. There should ultimately be a freeway connection from the bridge to the rest of the system (be it via I-140 or an eventually-upgraded US 74/76).
I would actually support Alternative B. If you figure the future plans to upgrade US-17 to interstate standards south of I-140, you'd have one continous north-south freeway, then you'd have a 3-way interchange with the Cape Fear Crossing, and maintained continuity on US-17 / I-140.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2019, 05:01:32 PM
Two intersections in Raleigh will be getting traffic lights: US-401/Fox Road and Litchford Road/Hunting Ridge Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-31-raleigh-intersections-traffic-lights.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-31-raleigh-intersections-traffic-lights.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on May 31, 2019, 05:13:17 PM
I hope they don't end up going with alternatives B or Q. There should ultimately be a freeway connection from the bridge to the rest of the system (be it via I-140 or an eventually-upgraded US 74/76).
I would actually support Alternative B. If you figure the future plans to upgrade US-17 to interstate standards south of I-140, you'd have one continous north-south freeway, then you'd have a 3-way interchange with the Cape Fear Crossing, and maintained continuity on US-17 / I-140.

I meant T, not B, for the reason I stated in my first post. T and Q both have the new freeway end at US 17 between 140 and 74/76 without upgrading 17 to a freeway.

I'm surprised NCDOT hasn't said anything (that I've seen, at least) about the proposed designation for the crossing. Presumably it would be a rerouted US 421 for alternative V-AW and an extended US 117 for the other alternatives.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 04, 2019, 09:40:10 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353).
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2019, 11:57:33 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353).
  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.

No complaints from me. They make perfect sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 04, 2019, 11:59:39 AM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353).
  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.


It only makes sense on both proposals, western leg is still a couple decades from completion tho. I've always thought US 52 through center city deserved upgrading and promotion to interstate. Only my opinion though. Glad both are paper official.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 04, 2019, 01:13:13 PM
At the AASHTO 2019 Spring Meeting, two proposals were submitted for NCDOT, which were subsequently approved. Link to Final Report (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/3/31/31119030d9a75754/Final_Report_to_CHS_USRN_Application_Results_Spring_2019.original.1558475352.pdf?1558475353).
  • Establishment of "Future I-274" in Winston-Salem, along the western segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway, on paper identified as NC 452.
  • Establishment of "Future I-285" in Winston-Salem, along US 52 from current terminus to Future I-74/I-274 interchange.
Hope you all are excited for more interstates.

I was definitely surprised by the I-285 application. I was wondering if they would ever request the extension to I-74. Will be interesting to see when they actually finish both of these interstates. It seems like 274 will probably be completed first since it's programmed in the STIP, but that could always change.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 04, 2019, 02:56:30 PM
^ That is the "extension to I-74".  Where "I-285" will meet "I-274" is the same location it will meet I-74.  I-74 is planned to follow the eastern side of the Winston-Salem Beltway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 04, 2019, 03:49:55 PM
I think future Interstate 274 (if approved) should only go from Interstate 40 to Future Interstates 74 and 285. The spur from US 158 to Interstate 40 should have a different designation, such as NC 274.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on June 04, 2019, 03:53:01 PM
^ That is the "extension to I-74".  Where "I-285" will meet "I-274" is the same location it will meet I-74.  I-74 is planned to follow the eastern side of the Winston-Salem Beltway.

Sorry I meant it as extension from the current terminus of I-285 to the I-74/I-274 junction. Bad wording on my part. :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 04, 2019, 04:30:50 PM
I think future Interstate 274 (if approved) should only go from Interstate 40 to Future Interstates 74 and 285. The spur from US 158 to Interstate 40 should have a different designation, such as NC 274.

I do not know why you said "if approved," it is approved.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2019, 05:35:30 AM
I still don’t get why NCDOT didn’t ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 05, 2019, 07:47:37 AM
I still don’t get why NCDOT didn’t ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 10:16:48 AM
I still don’t get why NCDOT didn’t ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 05, 2019, 06:55:47 PM
I still don’t get why NCDOT didn’t ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?

I had heard that US 17 was staying put, and that the bypass would have a new number (NC 417 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_417)). Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2019, 08:26:10 PM
Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
That's my point. The long-distance corridor should have seamless continuity onto I-140 and vice versa creating one seamless freeway. I suppose it'll be another I-73 at Greensboro situation for long-distance traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 05, 2019, 09:43:39 PM
I still don’t get why NCDOT didn’t ask to extend I-140 east of I-40 along the remaining part of the Wilmington Bypass.

It had something to do with the building of the new Military Cutoff extension, but I think Dr Malme knows a little better than myself!
That extension / bypass has a poor design IMHO. Mostly because US-17 does not have a seamless connection to I-140, but rather has to use a flyover ramp, and continuity is given to the Military Cutoff Extension.

But hey, what can we do?

I had heard that US 17 was staying put, and that the bypass would have a new number (NC 417 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NC_417)). Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
Still, the ultimate long-distance corridor uses the flyover.
That's my point. The long-distance corridor should have seamless continuity onto I-140 and vice versa creating one seamless freeway. I suppose it'll be another I-73 at Greensboro situation for long-distance traffic.

Hey -- at least the through (bypass/I-140) movement doesn't have to circumnavigate a loop; the flyover ramp is configured as a straight-line movement from NB 17, even if it isn't the leftmost set of lanes.  Out here, we who use I-5 say a big hello; NB there are TWO TOTSO's in the San Joaquin Valley (one at CA 99 and one at I-580); we've internalized those reasonably well.  All else considered, just be thankful that the bypass interchange NE of Wilmington is "conventionally" oriented, with the main traffic lanes turning onto the bypass.     
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 06, 2019, 05:22:26 PM
The new roller coaster ramp from US 74 west to I-26 east (https://goo.gl/maps/1SuHnU1Y71Dusse58) has finally opened (https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2019/06/06/new-u-s-74-ramp-open/) this week. It doesn't appear that NCDOT is planning to renumber the eastbound exit for US 74 to Exit 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/TmNu4LMpZ9raFEZP8) to match the westbound exit number (https://goo.gl/maps/p3Am1J5EWhDUtELz5) and is keeping it as 67.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 10, 2019, 07:31:12 AM
US-401 between NC-96 and NC-98 in northeastern Wake County is out of commission for a while.

https://www.wral.com/weekend-floodwaters-collapse-us-401-causing-issues-for-wake-drivers/18442230/ (https://www.wral.com/weekend-floodwaters-collapse-us-401-causing-issues-for-wake-drivers/18442230/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 10, 2019, 06:20:46 PM
US-401 between NC-96 and NC-98 in northeastern Wake County is out of commission for a while.

https://www.wral.com/weekend-floodwaters-collapse-us-401-causing-issues-for-wake-drivers/18442230/ (https://www.wral.com/weekend-floodwaters-collapse-us-401-causing-issues-for-wake-drivers/18442230/)

Update on this and other Triangle area roads.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-10-flood-repairs-wake-franklin-roads.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-10-flood-repairs-wake-franklin-roads.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 10, 2019, 09:10:34 PM
This current rain event  has been epic One government rain guage near work had 12" of rain in 36 hours.  Near the area, US 321 under I-40 had water rescue action Friday night and parts of the freeway we're under 8" of water.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 12, 2019, 05:45:34 PM
This current rain event  has been epic One government rain guage near work had 12" of rain in 36 hours.  Near the area, US 321 under I-40 had water rescue action Friday night and parts of the freeway we're under 8" of water.

And it's getting very expensive to keep up with. Landslides, washouts, culvert and bridge replacements. First Matthew and then Florence, and it's starting to impact available funding for new projects.

Hopefully DOT starts building higher bridges and larger culverts where feasible. I was at a meeting during Matthew recovery where a community brought up that DOT builds structures to accommodate the discharge and water surface elevation for "50-year" storm events, which is considered the typical lifespan for most hydraulic structures. The community also said those structures have been under water several times over the past decade, and that structures need to be built to accommodate the discharge from a 1-percent annual chance flood event (100-year).

Secretary Trogdon even mentioned this when discussing the recent 401 washout in Wake County. "Most of the primary roads in North Carolina are designed by standard to meet 50-year storms," Trogdon said during a news conference. "Seven and a half inches [of rain] in four hours ... that's a 1,000-year storm event."

We keep getting those. The 500-year storm is now the 100-year storm, the 100-year storm is now the 50-year storm, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 05:12:21 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-5870-2019-06-04.aspx
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-glenwood/Pages/concept-maps.aspx

What was NCDOT smoking when they came up with these concepts?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 13, 2019, 05:18:00 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-5870-2019-06-04.aspx
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-glenwood/Pages/concept-maps.aspx
What was NCDOT smoking when they came up with these concepts?

They were taking pot and getting all doped up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 05:30:32 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-5870-2019-06-04.aspx
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-glenwood/Pages/concept-maps.aspx
What was NCDOT smoking when they came up with these concepts?

They were taking pot and getting all doped up.
The scary part is it's funded to begin construction in 2025. This isn't just some drawing - this might be reality  :no:

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with it if the area wasn't a flood prone area. It's just going to be worse.

Interesting... in the FAQs -

Quote
Will the project contribute to flooding in the Crabtree Valley area?
NCDOT is well aware of the flooding that occurs along Crabtree Creek during storm events, and the project's potential to impact the existing flood plain is a major consideration. As design options are developed, the project team will use a detailed computer model of the study area to determine whether the design options will increase flooding during storm events.

Options that increase the potential for flooding will not be considered. NCDOT will also investigate design measures and treatment options that further minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff within the study area.

And I'm pretty sure no EIS is planned for this either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on June 13, 2019, 07:20:26 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 08:40:56 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Well it is a major urban center. This will be interesting to see play out, especially if it's constructed as soon as 2025. As of now, it's fully funded at $230 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 13, 2019, 09:33:27 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Well it is a major urban center. This will be interesting to see play out, especially if it's constructed as soon as 2025. As of now, it's fully funded at $230 million.

Tysons Corner is the 15th largest central business district in the U.S., with more square feet of office space than downtown Pittsburgh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 10:08:44 PM
Those plans have a very Tysons Corner feel, especially concepts 6 and 7. They must have been smoking auto fumes from car culture.
Well it is a major urban center. This will be interesting to see play out, especially if it's constructed as soon as 2025. As of now, it's fully funded at $230 million.

Tysons Corner is the 15th largest central business district in the U.S., with more square feet of office space than downtown Pittsburgh.
And that should determine how the DOT wants to do a project? Clearly, their mind is set on this. Detailed design alternatives, fully funded $230 million project. It's likely going to continue forward.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on June 13, 2019, 10:17:31 PM
And that should determine how the DOT wants to do a project? Clearly, their mind is set on this. Detailed design alternatives, fully funded $230 million project. It's likely going to continue forward.

Do you think that sufficient stream valley design is in place to prevent roadway flooding in up to medium sized storms?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 13, 2019, 10:38:45 PM
Concept 6 is similar to what they're proposing at 440 and Wade.

Concepts 4 and 5 are.....unorthodox...

Anyone else notice that 6 and 7 add a partial CFI at Glenwood & Creedmoor?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 10:47:50 PM
And that should determine how the DOT wants to do a project? Clearly, their mind is set on this. Detailed design alternatives, fully funded $230 million project. It's likely going to continue forward.

Do you think that sufficient stream valley design is in place to prevent roadway flooding in up to medium sized storms?
Quote
Will the project contribute to flooding in the Crabtree Valley area?
NCDOT is well aware of the flooding that occurs along Crabtree Creek during storm events, and the project's potential to impact the existing flood plain is a major consideration. As design options are developed, the project team will use a detailed computer model of the study area to determine whether the design options will increase flooding during storm events.

Options that increase the potential for flooding will not be considered. NCDOT will also investigate design measures and treatment options that further minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff within the study area.
This was on the project website's FAQ section.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 13, 2019, 10:57:39 PM
Concepts 4 and 5 are.....unorthodox...
Isn't that like 1900s urban design with block systems in cities? I've never seen it used in a modern 21st century project.

Anyone else notice that 6 and 7 add a partial CFI at Glenwood & Creedmoor?
I think that's the least abnormal thing about some of these concepts to be quite frank.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 14, 2019, 04:07:58 PM
The project was originally scheduled for 2022, but was delayed after Ridge Rd. residents pitched a fit at the originally proposed design.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 14, 2019, 06:09:07 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-14-us-70--slocum-gate-lane-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-14-us-70--slocum-gate-lane-closure.aspx)

Quote
HAVELOCK — Additional work and lane closures are needed next week so a contractor can continue to set girders over the eastbound lanes of U.S. 70 into Slocum Gate at the MCAS Cherry Point military base. Similar closures have been in place overnight this week.

The lane closures are planned for 8 p.m. until 5 a.m. for four consecutive nights, June 17-20. The work is weather conditional.

The left eastbound lane will be closed just past the intersection of Hickman Hill Loop Road. The remaining lane for eastbound traffic will be shifted to get around the work area. The left westbound lane will be closed at the Walmart intersection. The remaining right westbound lane will continue thru the work zone. Once past the work area, the highway will return to its normal traffic patterns.

Because of the work, the Slocum Gate will be closed from 8 p.m. until 5 a.m. each night.

Drivers are reminded to slow down when approaching the work zone, and to pay extra attention when going through the location.

The girder work is part of a $24.4 million project to build a new overpass to allow traffic to go directly into the Slocum Gate entrance for the base.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 14, 2019, 10:15:31 PM
The project was originally scheduled for 2022, but was delayed after Ridge Rd. residents pitched a fit at the originally proposed design.

What even was the originally proposed design, again?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 15, 2019, 09:06:09 AM
The project was originally scheduled for 2022, but was delayed after Ridge Rd. residents pitched a fit at the originally proposed design.

What even was the originally proposed design, again?

I've been trying to find the original public meeting maps. Basically it was a new connector from behind the mall with additional ramps to 440. Here's a News & Observer article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article210276379.html) and image.

(https://www.newsobserver.com/latest-news/khkrzj/picture210293064/alternates/FREE_1140/Crabtree%20Valley%20Ave%20-%20A3-B.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on June 18, 2019, 09:30:02 AM
Thing is, Ridge Road did not like the new direct connection to Glenwood. But they could have just eliminated the Ridge Road connection entirely, by connecting Ridge directly to Varnell instead of to Glenwood and the interchange) and then Ridge Road would have had nothing of substance to complain about.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 19, 2019, 03:57:33 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-05-17-pitt-county-pipe-replacement-ayden.aspx)

Quote
AYDEN — A section of a Pitt County road will be closed for approximately three weeks while the N.C. Department of Transportation replaces a large pipe under the roadway.

N.C. 102 in Ayden will be closed between N.C. 11 South and Pleasant Plain Road. The closure will begin at 7 a.m. June 10 and last through 5 p.m. June 28. During this time, crews will replace a storm drain cross line in front of Walgreen’s. If the contractor finishes the work early, the road will reopen sooner.

Traffic will be detoured onto Pleasant Plain Road and Old Snow Hill Road.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway going between two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrapping around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and ending at the U.S. 264 Bypass, west of Greenville. The new highway should open in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 19, 2019, 04:00:23 PM
The new highway should open in 2020.
Guess it got pushed back again? A recall an article a few months ago saying it could be done as early as November.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 19, 2019, 06:15:31 PM
3 of the 4 lanes of the new US-17 bypass in Jones and Onslow counties will open early tomorrow afternoon.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-19-onslow-jones-bypass-lanes-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-19-onslow-jones-bypass-lanes-opening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 19, 2019, 06:20:38 PM
3 of the 4 lanes of the new US-17 bypass in Jones and Onslow counties will open early tomorrow afternoon.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-19-onslow-jones-bypass-lanes-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-19-onslow-jones-bypass-lanes-opening.aspx)
Awesome, that will be much appreciated come next year for the upcoming and planned OBX Meet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 19, 2019, 08:17:23 PM
I wanted to see Greenville to Jacksonville and to Wilmington to have an I-97 designation and I-99 from Wilmington to Williamston.

I-97 can just end at us 64.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/TRAFFIC-ALERT--Part-of-US-264-interchange-in-Greenville-closing-for-one-month-510018381.html

Quote
GREENVILLE, NC (WITN) - If you frequently travel a popular highway in one Eastern Carolina city you should expect delays for the next month.


The North Carolina Department of Transportation says the exit ramp taking traffic off of US 264 to Stantonburg Road in Greenville will be closed, starting Monday.

The closure is due to construction on the Southwest Greenville Bypass which will connect Highway 11, south of Ayden, to the cloverleaf intersection at US 264.

If you're on MLK Highway, also known as U.S. 264, and wanting to get into Greenville onto Stantonsburg Road, you'll have to stay on U.S. 264 toward Wilson until the next exit, Mozingo Road, turn around and then come back east.

Contractors will be replacing the approach slabs for the bridge at the interchange and it will take a month.

The DOT says the new bypass is scheduled to be open by November.

According to this, it says November. And the dates are very similar to LM117's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2019, 01:32:04 PM
Nighttime closures of the US-74 bridge over the Cape Fear River in Wilmington begins tonight.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-isabel-holmes-nightly-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-isabel-holmes-nightly-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 20, 2019, 03:38:21 PM
A public meeting is being held in Shallotte on June 24 to discuss proposed improvements to both intersections of US-17/US-17 Business north and south of town.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 05:04:26 PM
A public meeting is being held in Shallotte on June 24 to discuss proposed improvements to both intersections of US-17/US-17 Business north and south of town.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx)
The project website claims the traffic signals would be removed, though the public hearing maps show otherwise...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 20, 2019, 06:41:28 PM
A public meeting is being held in Shallotte on June 24 to discuss proposed improvements to both intersections of US-17/US-17 Business north and south of town.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-20-public-meeting-brunswick-county-intersections-shallotte.aspx)
The project website claims the traffic signals would be removed, though the public hearing maps show otherwise...

So the project will build RCIs (reduced conflict, no-left-turns intersections) and not interchanges. Another blow to the idea, very popular in the forum, that NCDOT intends to upgrade all of US 17 to an interstate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 20, 2019, 06:55:08 PM
So the project will build RCIs (reduced conflict, no-left-turns intersections) and not interchanges. Another blow to the idea, very popular in the forum, that NCDOT intends to upgrade all of US 17 to an interstate highway.
NCDOT and SCDOT are currently studying extending the Carolina Bays Parkway from the current northern terminus to the Shallote Bypass, as a new-location freeway facility, and that would either bypass with RCI they are currently proposing, and pretty much abandon it as US-17 traffic would likely be routed on US-17 Business into Shallote, and that small leg of the bypass would close to accommodate the parkway tying into the rest of it, or the Parkway would tie into US-17 right before the bypass starts, and would likely finish off by constructing an interchange where they all would meet, where the RCI is currently going.

As for the northern intersection, no official plans for that stretch becoming a freeway in the short-term, though likely a freeway would be built new-location and "extend" the existing Shallote Bypass and tie back into the Bolivia Bypass / relocated segment.

Related to the "freeway" upgrade, while these two intersections are being converted to RCIs on the ends of the bypass, this intersection (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5862-interchange-20190131.pdf) on the bypass and where a US-17 freeway would likely pass through is being converted into a full grade-separated interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 21, 2019, 01:44:51 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-21-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-06-21-jones-county-ten-mile-fork-road-closure.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE- Beginning early next week, the N.C. Department of Transportation will close a section of a Jones County road.

Plans are to close Ten Mile Fork Road starting at 6 p.m. June 24 and reopen it at 7 p.m. June 25. A contractor will pour the concrete deck for a bridge over the Pollocksville road.

Traffic will be detoured from Ten Mile Fork Road using Scott Road, Oak Grove Road and Killis Murphy Road/ Loop Road. Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and slow down when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of a 16.3-mile project which starts south of Belgrade and ties into the U.S. 17 bypass around New Bern. The project costs about $143.4 million and is expected to be complete later this year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 21, 2019, 05:03:50 PM
So the project will build RCIs (reduced conflict, no-left-turns intersections) and not interchanges. Another blow to the idea, very popular in the forum, that NCDOT intends to upgrade all of US 17 to an interstate highway.
NCDOT and SCDOT are currently studying extending the Carolina Bays Parkway from the current northern terminus to the Shallote Bypass, as a new-location freeway facility, and that would either bypass with RCI they are currently proposing, and pretty much abandon it as US-17 traffic would likely be routed on US-17 Business into Shallote, and that small leg of the bypass would close to accommodate the parkway tying into the rest of it, or the Parkway would tie into US-17 right before the bypass starts, and would likely finish off by constructing an interchange where they all would meet, where the RCI is currently going.

As for the northern intersection, no official plans for that stretch becoming a freeway in the short-term, though likely a freeway would be built new-location and "extend" the existing Shallote Bypass and tie back into the Bolivia Bypass / relocated segment.

Related to the "freeway" upgrade, while these two intersections are being converted to RCIs on the ends of the bypass, this intersection (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5862-interchange-20190131.pdf) on the bypass and where a US-17 freeway would likely pass through is being converted into a full grade-separated interchange.
I've driven this road countless times visiting aging relatives in Myrtle Beach, so I'm much in favor of a freeway conversion. NCDOT's map of the current study area is here:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/carolina-bays-parkway/Documents/vicinity-map.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 22, 2019, 10:23:36 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 23, 2019, 06:37:50 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Thanks for a very interesting account!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on June 23, 2019, 09:42:55 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Thanks for a very interesting account!


Outstanding blog post! It's so neat to read my state's history like that. Also, as someone who grew up in Winston-Salem, I was alive for and do remember the construction of "New 40" and until I would travel to High Point I had no idea Business Interstates could be anything less than freeway after being used to "Old 40" through my city :)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 27, 2019, 07:02:27 AM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 27, 2019, 03:54:56 PM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
And that means we won’t be going there anytime soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on June 28, 2019, 04:44:06 PM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
And that means we won’t be going there anytime soon.

Pitt County is ranked 14th in the state in Population, (2010 Census) but 1st in car accidents, over the last 10 years, Pitt or New Hanover County (Wilmington) have traded places (1st or 2nd) to see who has the most accidents in the state.  In other words, something has to be done. A county ranked 14th in population should not be first or even top 5 in accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 28, 2019, 05:31:27 PM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
And that means we won’t be going there anytime soon.

Pitt County is ranked 14th in the state in Population, (2010 Census) but 1st in car accidents, over the last 10 years, Pitt or New Hanover County (Wilmington) have traded places (1st or 2nd) to see who has the most accidents in the state.  In other words, something has to be done. A county ranked 14th in population should not be first or even top 5 in accidents.
I guess we won’t be passing thru NHC/Wilmington either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on June 28, 2019, 06:14:42 PM
I complain about everything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 28, 2019, 10:40:08 PM
I got nothing for ya on that.
No comment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 01:16:03 AM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 29, 2019, 02:34:01 AM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Which one of us are you referring to? I’m ok now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 29, 2019, 09:38:56 AM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Which one of us are you referring to? I’m ok now.
NE2
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on June 29, 2019, 05:50:21 PM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Which one of us are you referring to? I’m ok now.
NE2
I'm referring to Kevkev though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 30, 2019, 02:05:51 PM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Which one of us are you referring to? I’m ok now.
NE2
I'm referring to Kevkev though.
Lol, are you really now?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 30, 2019, 02:06:09 PM
I complain about everything.
You just can’t help yourself can you?
Which one of us are you referring to? I’m ok now.
NE2
Thanks, I was gonna say myself.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on July 01, 2019, 03:46:53 PM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
And that means we won’t be going there anytime soon.

Pitt County is ranked 14th in the state in Population, (2010 Census) but 1st in car accidents, over the last 10 years, Pitt or New Hanover County (Wilmington) have traded places (1st or 2nd) to see who has the most accidents in the state.  In other words, something has to be done. A county ranked 14th in population should not be first or even top 5 in accidents.

I thought it was pretty well-established that red light cameras increase, not decrease, accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 05:25:39 PM
Looks like the red light cameras in Greenville aren’t going anywhere.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/06/27/Panel-rules-in-favor-of-city-in-red-light-lawsuit.html)
And that means we won’t be going there anytime soon.

Pitt County is ranked 14th in the state in Population, (2010 Census) but 1st in car accidents, over the last 10 years, Pitt or New Hanover County (Wilmington) have traded places (1st or 2nd) to see who has the most accidents in the state.  In other words, something has to be done. A county ranked 14th in population should not be first or even top 5 in accidents.

I thought it was pretty well-established that red light cameras increase, not decrease, accidents.
Indeed, that is rather the case.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 01, 2019, 06:32:18 PM
They increase overall crashes...usually rear-end type.  But they tend to decrease the more serious T-bone and head-on crashes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 01, 2019, 06:57:51 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-01-independence-day-construction-suspension.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-01-independence-day-construction-suspension.aspx)

Quote
RALEIGH — To ensure the most efficient travel for North Carolina drivers over the July 4 holiday, the N.C. Department of Transportation will suspend most road construction projects that cause lane closures on major routes across the state.

Where possible, closed lanes will be opened from the morning of Wednesday, July 3, through the evening of Friday, July 5. There are some locations where the type of construction or the project status will not allow an opening for safety reasons.

Heavy traffic is also expected on Sunday, July 7, particularly on interstates. NCDOT is reviewing any lane closures that may be planned that day for primary routes and could extend the lane closure restrictions at those locations to avoid potential traffic backups.

Drivers can check the status of the route they plan to take in advance by going to DriveNC.gov. They can also follow NCDOT on Twitter to track travel updates by region or route.

NCDOT encourages drivers to follow these tips to navigate the roads safely over the holiday:

-Leave early. Travel at non-peak hours and use alternative routes to avoid the heaviest traffic congestion.
-Stay alert. Even when work is paused, you may encounter narrowed lanes, shifts in traffic and lower speed limits through work zones.
-Be patient.
-Don’t drive drowsy. For extended drives, take frequent breaks to remain alert.
-Don’t drive distracted. When drivers are not focused on the road, they react slowly to traffic conditions and are more likely to be involved in a crash.

The July 4 holiday is also a time for law enforcement to crack down on drunk driving. The N.C. Governor’s Highway Safety Program started its Operation Firecracker campaign this week, geared toward catching people who are driving under the influence.

Sobriety checkpoints will be in place in all 100 counties through Sunday, July 7, to keep impaired drivers off the roads for their safety and the safety of others.
If you plan to drink over the holiday period, NCDOT and GHSP strongly urge you to call a friend, use a ride-share service or take a cab — just don’t drive drunk.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 06:58:05 PM
They increase overall crashes...usually rear-end type.  But they tend to decrease the more serious T-bone and head-on crashes.
Those don’t happen all the time, but when they do, boy do they cause major ramifications for the parties involved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 01, 2019, 09:26:41 PM
Just outside of downtown Hillsborough is the site of the former Occoneechee Speedway.  The one mile dirt track was one of the original tracks in NASCAR's inaugural 1949 season.  Abandoned in 1968 when local religious leaders protested Sunday Races, the track is now home to a series of hiking trails that mixes North Carolina history and scenery.

In addition, concerns over preserving the speedway help to kill a planned NC 86 bypass to the east of Hillsborough around 2010.

https://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2019/06/occoneechee-speedway.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on July 01, 2019, 09:45:45 PM
Just outside of downtown Hillsborough is the site of the former Occoneechee Speedway.  The one mile dirt track was one of the original tracks in NASCAR's inaugural 1949 season.  Abandoned in 1968 when local religious leaders protested Sunday Races, the track is now home to a series of hiking trails that mixes North Carolina history and scenery.

In addition, concerns over preserving the speedway help to kill a planned NC 86 bypass to the east of Hillsborough around 2010.

https://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2019/06/occoneechee-speedway.html (https://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2019/06/occoneechee-speedway.html)
Unrelated, but it appears that Hillsborough is the oldest inland town in NC. I did read about that former NASCAR speedway somewhat recently, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 02, 2019, 08:16:21 AM
W-S Business 40 project update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-01-business-40-construction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-01-business-40-construction.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on July 02, 2019, 10:09:24 AM
Just outside of downtown Hillsborough is the site of the former Occoneechee Speedway.  The one mile dirt track was one of the original tracks in NASCAR's inaugural 1949 season.  Abandoned in 1968 when local religious leaders protested Sunday Races, the track is now home to a series of hiking trails that mixes North Carolina history and scenery.

In addition, concerns over preserving the speedway help to kill a planned NC 86 bypass to the east of Hillsborough around 2010.

https://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2019/06/occoneechee-speedway.html

When it cools down a bit, I hope to go there. They've preserved a lot of the original buildings around the racetrack, and the concrete grandstands are still there, and largely intact. They've also got a few old race cars around the trail, but nothing that's preserved. Mainly just rusting away.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 02, 2019, 11:54:34 AM
A public meeting is being held on July 8 in Ash to discuss improvements to the US-17/NC-904 intersection in Brunswick County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/19-07-02-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/19-07-02-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on July 03, 2019, 12:57:15 AM
This is something I just now thought about, it might be possible the I-485 express lanes broject between 77 and 74 could threaten the existence of some of the last (if not, the only ones left) button copy signs in NC.
(context: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-485-express-lanes/Pages/default.aspx)
The signs in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0664732,-80.7517574,3a,15y,257.78h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spn7Ew-XnicK9-grs4C2oUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0789925,-80.742237,3a,15y,250.35h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOjEzXUNrCrmzr7iqd0hijA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Now, I would imagine this is, more likely than not, not the case, because express lanes go on the inside of the two travel directions, so hopefully this shouldn't affect the signs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on July 03, 2019, 01:44:03 AM
This is something I just now thought about, it might be possible the I-485 express lanes broject between 77 and 74 could threaten the existence of some of the last (if not, the only ones left) button copy signs in NC.
(context: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-485-express-lanes/Pages/default.aspx)
The signs in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0664732,-80.7517574,3a,15y,257.78h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spn7Ew-XnicK9-grs4C2oUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0789925,-80.742237,3a,15y,250.35h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOjEzXUNrCrmzr7iqd0hijA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Now, I would imagine this is, more likely than not, not the case, because express lanes go on the inside of the two travel directions, so hopefully this shouldn't affect the signs.


Unfortunately the signs’ days are numbered, I’m afraid.  And this may mean the last of the button copy in Greater Charlotte, but there is still quite a bit of it left along the US 1 freeway b/w Sanford and somewhere before entering Wake County.  I don’t think that roadway will need a reconstruction anytime soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on July 03, 2019, 08:12:35 AM
This is something I just now thought about, it might be possible the I-485 express lanes broject between 77 and 74 could threaten the existence of some of the last (if not, the only ones left) button copy signs in NC.
(context: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-485-express-lanes/Pages/default.aspx)
The signs in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0664732,-80.7517574,3a,15y,257.78h,92.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spn7Ew-XnicK9-grs4C2oUA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0789925,-80.742237,3a,15y,250.35h,92.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOjEzXUNrCrmzr7iqd0hijA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Now, I would imagine this is, more likely than not, not the case, because express lanes go on the inside of the two travel directions, so hopefully this shouldn't affect the signs.


Unfortunately the signs’ days are numbered, I’m afraid.  And this may mean the last of the button copy in Greater Charlotte, but there is still quite a bit of it left along the US 1 freeway b/w Sanford and somewhere before entering Wake County.  I don’t think that roadway will need a reconstruction anytime soon.


Pattern of other NCDOT projects is to replace all signs along the roadway being worked on, so the entire stretch from 74 to 77 will look fresh and new, even if it’s just inside lanes being added/smoothed over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 03, 2019, 11:48:47 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/19-07-03-pitt-county-ramp-improvements-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/19-07-03-pitt-county-ramp-improvements-closure.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — A Pitt County highway ramp will be closed for several weeks as crews make improvements to part of the Southwest Bypass project.

Beginning at 7 a.m. July 8, exit 73 B on U.S. 264 East will be closed. This exit will remain closed for about one month.

During the closure, the N.C. Department of Transportation will replace the approach slabs for the bridge at the interchange of U.S. 264 East.

Traffic heading east will continue on U.S. 264 to Memorial Drive (U.S. 13 N) and turn left. Traffic will head toward the interchange and continue for about two miles. Traffic will exit onto U.S. 264 and then head back east.

​Drivers should anticipate needing extra time during their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway going between two miles south of Ayden on N.C. 11. The construction will wrap around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and ending at the U.S. 264 Bypass, west of Greenville. The new highway should open in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 05, 2019, 01:56:16 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/29-07-05-nightly-lane-closure-slocum-gate-overpass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/29-07-05-nightly-lane-closure-slocum-gate-overpass.aspx)

Quote
HAVELOCK — Starting Monday, the N.C. Department of Transportation plans to close lanes on U.S. 70 as work continues to complete the overpass across the highway into Slocum Gate, the main access to Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point.

From July 8 through Sept. 20, east and westbound lanes will close overnight on U.S. 70 in Havelock. Lanes can be closed every night of the week, but crews are restricted to work between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m. These closures are necessary for contract crews to place asphalt, as well as finish the shoulders and overpass.

This work is part of the project to build a new overpass across U.S. 70 into Slocum Gate​ at MCAS Cherry Point. The $24.4 million project impacts 1.2 miles of the highway and will allow traffic to freely flow into the Slocum Gate entrance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 08, 2019, 07:03:23 AM
Progress update on the US-301 (Wesleyan Blvd) widening project in Rocky Mount.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/07/Road-project-remains-on-schedule.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/07/Road-project-remains-on-schedule.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 08, 2019, 12:51:06 PM
A public meeting is being held on July 15 in Ash to discuss improving the US-17/Hickman Road NW intersection.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-08-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-08-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on July 08, 2019, 02:52:38 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Nice article.  I could see most of the existing US 301 route being able to be upgraded to be I-95.  Much of it has or had frontage roads which would allow for the upgrade like what will be done for I-42/US 70 in the James City area.  The problem area is between Locust St and Grove St.  I suppose this is where the compromise route would have used a new alignment.  That route would have been ok until the route needs to to be expanded.  Expanding the compromise route likely would be much more expensive to build compared to expanding the route that exists now. 

But I would question whether the compromise route would have been much better than the route that was ultimately built since that too probably would have bypassed the section of highway with the most businesses along it or highest density of businesses.  But they would still be much closer to I-95.

Here I guessed at the smallest part of the route that would be bypassed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cS3AxNGyKWZD2ySzL8nVjBBnrIh8B93F&usp=sharing
And for giggles I combined that with a connection to make a Fayetteville inner loop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 08, 2019, 03:33:28 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Nice article.  I could see most of the existing US 301 route being able to be upgraded to be I-95.  Much of it has or had frontage roads which would allow for the upgrade like what will be done for I-42/US 70 in the James City area.  The problem area is between Locust St and Grove St.  I suppose this is where the compromise route would have used a new alignment.  That route would have been ok until the route needs to to be expanded.  Expanding the compromise route likely would be much more expensive to build compared to expanding the route that exists now. 

But I would question whether the compromise route would have been much better than the route that was ultimately built since that too probably would have bypassed the section of highway with the most businesses along it or highest density of businesses.  But they would still be much closer to I-95.

Here I guessed at the smallest part of the route that would be bypassed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cS3AxNGyKWZD2ySzL8nVjBBnrIh8B93F&usp=sharing
And for giggles I combined that with a connection to make a Fayetteville inner loop.

I saw an article yesterday that might be relevant here.

https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20190707/faywhat-why-so-few-businesses-at-cumberland-countys-i-95-exits (https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20190707/faywhat-why-so-few-businesses-at-cumberland-countys-i-95-exits)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 08, 2019, 06:22:02 PM
A public meeting is being held on July 15 in Ash to discuss improving the US-17/Hickman Road NW intersection.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-08-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-08-brunswick-county-intersection-public-meeting.aspx)
For Those who may not be familiar with Hickman Road, it is the route used by many drivers to bridge the gap between US 17 in NC and the Carolina Bays Parkway in SC. So there's a lot of northbound traffic turning left onto US 17 from Hickman Road. Sight lines are good, so it's not a particularly dangerous turn. However I can see why NCDOT is interested in upgrading the intersection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 09, 2019, 06:49:43 PM
I missed this announcement last week: NCDOT has begun replacement of this 1941 bridge over the Eno River on US 70 Bypass east of Hillsborough: https://goo.gl/maps/nZzU6xYB2vJJzmPf7

The new bridge will be long enough to provide clearance for a greenway trail underneath: that trail would be a link in the Mountains to Sea Trail.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-02-eno-river-bridge-replacement.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 10, 2019, 08:39:32 PM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey

Earlier today, a trip to the attic ended up with me checking out a box of NC maps I hadn't touched in probably five years.  WIthin the box was a 2004 map of Raleigh that had a few clues (two map errors of roads not even built yet) on the Northern Durham Parkway/NC 472.  Some further digging lead to a blog entry about the proposals for this route and the map errors. 

The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps.  However, there is no funding for this highway at the moment....so time will tell.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

I recently received two pieces of information that help put together more of the Northern Durham Parkway puzzle.

1st - at one of NCDOT's Traffic Management Center's - the proposed routing of the cancelled Northern Durham Parkway's Northern Arc is shown.
2nd - information on some of the preserved right-of-way for the Parkway near Mineral Springs Road (north of NC 98) within Section AC. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

H/T on the Northern Arc Routing to Ben Thurkill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 11, 2019, 07:08:20 AM
NC has also proposed NC 472 for the Northern Durham Pkwy which will run from the I-40/540 by RDU Airport concurrent with I-540  to Aviation Pkwy then north as new construction to connect with US 501 north of Durham.  See https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/Map%20U-4721%20140611%201609%20-%20SDV.pdf

I find it odd that the June 2014 NC STIP (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Planning%20Document%20Library/LIVE_STIP.pdf) shows this as unfunded yet they have gone to the trouble of proposing a route change and assigning a number.

They are also going to extend NC 58 another 1.4 miles to the end of the road in Fort Macon State Park - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/NC%2058%20Carteret%20Request%20140422%20-%20APPROVED.pdf

These changes plus NC 555 were published in the last day or two.

Mapmikey

Earlier today, a trip to the attic ended up with me checking out a box of NC maps I hadn't touched in probably five years.  WIthin the box was a 2004 map of Raleigh that had a few clues (two map errors of roads not even built yet) on the Northern Durham Parkway/NC 472.  Some further digging lead to a blog entry about the proposals for this route and the map errors. 

The Northern Durham Parkway was first proposed in the late 1960s and was part of the controversial "Eno Drive" proposal.  A compromise proposal in the late 90s leads to the new routing today. Plus, if the state ever moves forward in building the highway from I-540 to I-85 as a freeway - another new interstate perhaps.  However, there is no funding for this highway at the moment....so time will tell.

http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

I recently received two pieces of information that help put together more of the Northern Durham Parkway puzzle.

1st - at one of NCDOT's Traffic Management Center's - the proposed routing of the cancelled Northern Durham Parkway's Northern Arc is shown.
2nd - information on some of the preserved right-of-way for the Parkway near Mineral Springs Road (north of NC 98) within Section AC. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/07/the-few-clues-of-northern-durham-parkway.html

H/T on the Northern Arc Routing to Ben Thurkill.

Personal opinion empahsized, but I think it would make more sense for NC 472 just be put on all of Aviation Pkwy to NC 54 instead of having it end in a concurrency with I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 11, 2019, 01:23:40 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (July 22 in Lumberton, July 23 in Hope Mills) to discuss widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Lumberton and Hope Mills.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 01:37:53 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (July 22 in Lumberton, July 23 in Hope Mills) to discuss widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Lumberton and Hope Mills.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx)
Been waiting on this project... now we're up to 45 miles out of 182 - 25% of the entire corridor.

Hopefully this will get accelerated in future STIPs and the Fayetteville Bypass will get funded for 6 or 8-lanes as well.

Edit - After reviewing the projects submitted to the STIP, though many unfunded, it gives an idea what the ultimate build out is. Here's the submissions for I-95 -

1) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 and I-795 / US-264 - Unfunded
2) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-40 and I-95 Business - Fully Funded
3) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and I-95 Business (Fayetteville Bypass) - Unfunded
4) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and US-301 - Fully Funded
5) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between US-301 and I-74 - Unfunded
6) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between I-74 and the SC State Line - Unfunded

Nothing proposed or submitted for the STIP for the US-64 to VA segment, and US-64 to I-795 / US-264 segment. It appears the major 8-lane section NCDOT wants is between I-40 and I-74, and 6-lanes the rest. All of the 8-lane section is now fully funded, except the small US-301 to I-74 leg, and the Fayetteville Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 11, 2019, 02:28:57 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Nice article.  I could see most of the existing US 301 route being able to be upgraded to be I-95.  Much of it has or had frontage roads which would allow for the upgrade like what will be done for I-42/US 70 in the James City area.  The problem area is between Locust St and Grove St.  I suppose this is where the compromise route would have used a new alignment.  That route would have been ok until the route needs to to be expanded.  Expanding the compromise route likely would be much more expensive to build compared to expanding the route that exists now. 

But I would question whether the compromise route would have been much better than the route that was ultimately built since that too probably would have bypassed the section of highway with the most businesses along it or highest density of businesses.  But they would still be much closer to I-95.

Here I guessed at the smallest part of the route that would be bypassed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cS3AxNGyKWZD2ySzL8nVjBBnrIh8B93F&usp=sharing
And for giggles I combined that with a connection to make a Fayetteville inner loop.

I saw an article yesterday that might be relevant here.

https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20190707/faywhat-why-so-few-businesses-at-cumberland-countys-i-95-exits (https://www.fayobserver.com/news/20190707/faywhat-why-so-few-businesses-at-cumberland-countys-i-95-exits)

Thanks for sharing that and I will most likely add some of the information to the feature.

I kinda get a chuckle on the timing - it's almost like someone from the faytteville paper saw the blog story and got an idea from it.  I'm probably wrong but...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 11, 2019, 02:59:58 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (July 22 in Lumberton, July 23 in Hope Mills) to discuss widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Lumberton and Hope Mills.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx)
Been waiting on this project... now we're up to 45 miles out of 182 - 25% of the entire corridor.

Hopefully this will get accelerated in future STIPs and the Fayetteville Bypass will get funded for 6 or 8-lanes as well.

Edit - After reviewing the projects submitted to the STIP, though many unfunded, it gives an idea what the ultimate build out is. Here's the submissions for I-95 -

1) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 and I-795 / US-264 - Unfunded
2) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-40 and I-95 Business - Fully Funded
3) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and I-95 Business (Fayetteville Bypass) - Unfunded
4) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and US-301 - Fully Funded
5) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between US-301 and I-74 - Unfunded
6) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between I-74 and the SC State Line - Unfunded

Nothing proposed or submitted for the STIP for the US-64 to VA segment, and US-64 to I-795 / US-264 segment. It appears the major 8-lane section NCDOT wants is between I-40 and I-74, and 6-lanes the rest. All of the 8-lane section is now fully funded, except the small US-301 to I-74 leg, and the Fayetteville Bypass.

Going north of 64, the big issue will be the Roanoke River bridges, can't just slap and extra lane and be done with it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 03:08:45 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (July 22 in Lumberton, July 23 in Hope Mills) to discuss widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Lumberton and Hope Mills.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx)
Been waiting on this project... now we're up to 45 miles out of 182 - 25% of the entire corridor.

Hopefully this will get accelerated in future STIPs and the Fayetteville Bypass will get funded for 6 or 8-lanes as well.

Edit - After reviewing the projects submitted to the STIP, though many unfunded, it gives an idea what the ultimate build out is. Here's the submissions for I-95 -

1) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 and I-795 / US-264 - Unfunded
2) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-40 and I-95 Business - Fully Funded
3) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and I-95 Business (Fayetteville Bypass) - Unfunded
4) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and US-301 - Fully Funded
5) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between US-301 and I-74 - Unfunded
6) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between I-74 and the SC State Line - Unfunded

Nothing proposed or submitted for the STIP for the US-64 to VA segment, and US-64 to I-795 / US-264 segment. It appears the major 8-lane section NCDOT wants is between I-40 and I-74, and 6-lanes the rest. All of the 8-lane section is now fully funded, except the small US-301 to I-74 leg, and the Fayetteville Bypass.

Going north of 64, the big issue will be the Roanoke River bridges, can't just slap and extra lane and be done with it.
Widen the bridges just like any other overpass bridge. It's not that hard.

My biggest concern widening I-95 to Virginia is the Va State Line itself because there would be a lane drop and we all know how that goes on any major highway during peak travel times. VDOT has no plans to expand I-95 to 6-lanes north of there, and if they did, it would have to go up to I-295 to be any effective because any lane drop south of there would still cause backups in peak travel times.

VDOT has far greater priorities widening I-64 to Richmond, I-81, and I-95 to Fredericksburg / I-295 North.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 11, 2019, 03:36:27 PM
NCDOT is holding two public meetings (July 22 in Lumberton, July 23 in Hope Mills) to discuss widening I-95 to 8 lanes between Lumberton and Hope Mills.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-11-ncdot-widening-proposal-i-95-robeson-cumberland.aspx)
Been waiting on this project... now we're up to 45 miles out of 182 - 25% of the entire corridor.

Hopefully this will get accelerated in future STIPs and the Fayetteville Bypass will get funded for 6 or 8-lanes as well.

Edit - After reviewing the projects submitted to the STIP, though many unfunded, it gives an idea what the ultimate build out is. Here's the submissions for I-95 -

1) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between US-64 and I-795 / US-264 - Unfunded
2) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-40 and I-95 Business - Fully Funded
3) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and I-95 Business (Fayetteville Bypass) - Unfunded
4) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between I-95 Business and US-301 - Fully Funded
5) Widen from 4 to 8 lanes between US-301 and I-74 - Unfunded
6) Widen from 4 to 6 lanes between I-74 and the SC State Line - Unfunded

Nothing proposed or submitted for the STIP for the US-64 to VA segment, and US-64 to I-795 / US-264 segment. It appears the major 8-lane section NCDOT wants is between I-40 and I-74, and 6-lanes the rest. All of the 8-lane section is now fully funded, except the small US-301 to I-74 leg, and the Fayetteville Bypass.

Going north of 64, the big issue will be the Roanoke River bridges, can't just slap and extra lane and be done with it.
Widen the bridges just like any other overpass bridge. It's not that hard.

My biggest concern widening I-95 to Virginia is the Va State Line itself because there would be a lane drop and we all know how that goes on any major highway during peak travel times. VDOT has no plans to expand I-95 to 6-lanes north of there, and if they did, it would have to go up to I-295 to be any effective because any lane drop south of there would still cause backups in peak travel times.

VDOT has far greater priorities widening I-64 to Richmond, I-81, and I-95 to Fredericksburg / I-295 North.

Don't disagree on the lane drop, have it here on I-40 westbound at the 15-501 exit and evening rush traffic is a bear. 

But, still going to disagree on the simplicity of just adding another lane on the bridges, it's not a normal water crossing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 04:49:28 PM
Don't disagree on the lane drop, have it here on I-40 westbound at the 15-501 exit and evening rush traffic is a bear.
https://publicinput.com/I-40-Orange-County

A $160.2 million project set to begin in 2021 would widen I-40 from 15-501 to I-85 from 4 to 6 lanes. That should help.

But, still going to disagree on the simplicity of just adding another lane on the bridges, it's not a normal water crossing.
It's been done countless times. Many times the bridges will end up just being fully replaced instead of widened. It may not be the simplest of tasks, but it's certainly doable.

Where I'm at, they are going to construct a 4-mile 8-lane bridge over the Hampton Roads waters and two 1/2 mile underwater tunnels starting next year. Certainly not simple, but certainly doable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on July 11, 2019, 05:45:06 PM
But, still going to disagree on the simplicity of just adding another lane on the bridges, it's not a normal water crossing.
What's not normal about it?

Those bridges would definitely not be replaced.  They were replaced in 1999 (https://bridgereports.com/1332594).  I think it would be more likely to fill in the space between the two bridges to accommodate six lanes for that crossing.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 05:56:25 PM
But, still going to disagree on the simplicity of just adding another lane on the bridges, it's not a normal water crossing.
What's not normal about it?

Those bridges would definitely not be replaced.  They were replaced in 1999 (https://bridgereports.com/1332594).  I think it would be more likely to fill in the space between the two bridges to accommodate six lanes for that crossing.   
Well in that case, it would likely just be widened to the inside. Not a hard task.

Weird, you'd think the replacement in 1999 would have been built with a wide (22-24 feet) left shoulder for expansion.

The current bridge replacement over the Little River further south is being built with future lanes. Currently, only 2 lanes in each direction traverse the existing bridges, however the new ones will have 4 lanes southbound and 5 lanes northbound (an extended acceleration lane). Only 2 mainline lanes each way will be striped for now, but when the section is widened to 6 or even 8 lanes, the bridge will simply be re-striped instead of having to be widened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 09:01:27 PM
But, still going to disagree on the simplicity of just adding another lane on the bridges, it's not a normal water crossing.
It's been done countless times. Many times the bridges will end up just being fully replaced instead of widened. It may not be the simplest of tasks, but it's certainly doable.
Where I'm at, they are going to construct a 4-mile 8-lane bridge over the Hampton Roads waters and two 1/2 mile underwater tunnels starting next year. Certainly not simple, but certainly doable.

The I-95 Roanoke River bridges are about 1,150 feet long.  That is child's play compared to what has been needed in a number of other states; if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.

BTW, the twin tunnels on the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel are each 7,479 feet long.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 11, 2019, 09:32:14 PM
Since I know nothing substantive about bridge construction I will pose this question...

The Roanoke River in that location is subject to very large fluctuations in flow because the nearby dam releases water which affects both the depth of the river and the speed of the flow.  Would this either require sturdier piers and/or would there be logistical difficulties during the construction because of the rapid changes in the river condition?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 09:48:30 PM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.

To name a few of the longer ones...

- US-17 over Chowan River, 2 miles long
- NC-32 over Chowan River, 4 miles long
- US-64 Bypass over Croatan Sound, 6 miles long
- US-64 over Croatan Sound, 3 miles long
- US-64 over Roanoke Sound, 1 mile long
- NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, 3 miles long
- US-70 over Gallants Channel, 1 mile long
- I-140 over Cape Fear River, 1 mile long
- US-70 / US-17 over Neuse River, 3 miles long
- US-17 over Pamlico River, 3 miles long
- US-158 over Currituck Sound, 3 miles long

All those examples are in Eastern NC, I could name plenty of more in the western, more mountainous part of the state, and likely more I missed in the eastern part. Most of those were built in the last 20-30 years, a lot the past 10-15.

Not to mention, the proposed high-rise Cape Fear Skyway which would be almost 2 miles long, along with the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge which would build almost 7 miles of bridge over water and swamp.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 11, 2019, 10:16:53 PM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.

To name a few of the longer ones...
The only really impressive one is the new bridge on NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, with the combination of length, height, foundations, span lengths, and what it crosses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 11:00:38 AM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.

To name a few of the longer ones...
The only really impressive one is the new bridge on NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, with the combination of length, height, foundations, span lengths, and what it crosses.

The complexity come from the amount of traffic that stretch of I-95 carries, sure close one span while the other is being worked and create a choke point where the alternatives are local roads, US 301 being the most logical but that is 2 lane rural road.  The other alternatives are either too far to be practical or as listed previously rural 2 lane back roads.

Mapmikey pointed out the release and water flow of the Roanoke River, we do get hurricanes here and that area is prone to flooding so, construction will be subject to weather delays no matter how you can plan.  Nevermind, that our fair share of wet weather is during peak construction times of the year.  We do have the exception of somewhat warmer winter but, that is also in flux.  Glad you brought up the Basnight Bridge, that was 3 years of construction after 30 years of lawsuits over environmental issues. 

By all means explain away these complexities.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 11:18:34 AM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.

To name a few of the longer ones...
The only really impressive one is the new bridge on NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, with the combination of length, height, foundations, span lengths, and what it crosses.

The complexity come from the amount of traffic that stretch of I-95 carries, sure close one span while the other is being worked and create a choke point where the alternatives are local roads, US 301 being the most logical but that is 2 lane rural road.  The other alternatives are either too far to be practical or as listed previously rural 2 lane back roads.

Mapmikey pointed out the release and water flow of the Roanoke River, we do get hurricanes here and that area is prone to flooding so, construction will be subject to weather delays no matter how you can plan.  Nevermind, that our fair share of wet weather is during peak construction times of the year.  We do have the exception of somewhat warmer winter but, that is also in flux.  Glad you brought up the Basnight Bridge, that was 3 years of construction after 30 years of lawsuits over environmental issues. 

By all means explain away these complexities.
You don’t have to close a span. You can widen a bridge with traffic moving on it. Hell, you can even replace a bridge with traffic moving on it by doing it in sections.

It’s certainly doable without removing traffic. Reduce the speed limit to 55 mph, shift traffic to the far right of each bridge, put up construction barriers on the left, then work in the median to build more bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 11:22:07 AM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.

To name a few of the longer ones...
The only really impressive one is the new bridge on NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, with the combination of length, height, foundations, span lengths, and what it crosses.

The complexity come from the amount of traffic that stretch of I-95 carries, sure close one span while the other is being worked and create a choke point where the alternatives are local roads, US 301 being the most logical but that is 2 lane rural road.  The other alternatives are either too far to be practical or as listed previously rural 2 lane back roads.

Mapmikey pointed out the release and water flow of the Roanoke River, we do get hurricanes here and that area is prone to flooding so, construction will be subject to weather delays no matter how you can plan.  Nevermind, that our fair share of wet weather is during peak construction times of the year.  We do have the exception of somewhat warmer winter but, that is also in flux.  Glad you brought up the Basnight Bridge, that was 3 years of construction after 30 years of lawsuits over environmental issues. 

By all means explain away these complexities.
You don’t have to close a span. You can widen a bridge with traffic moving on it. Hell, you can even replace a bridge with traffic moving on it by doing it in sections.

It’s certainly doable without removing traffic. Reduce the speed limit to 55 mph, shift traffic to the far right of each bridge, put up construction barriers on the left, then work in the median to build more bridge.

BTW, this is with no construction on I-95 near Rocky Mount just last February:

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/crash-closes-i-95-northbound-near-rocky-mount/

Also, I'm saying it can't be done, just saying that the problems are going to be heavily reviewed before plans are done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on July 12, 2019, 11:36:40 AM
An in progress example would be I-81 over the Potomac River.  It has much more traffic than this spot on I-95: 53320 vs 17500 via bridgereports.com.  And it has a narrower road deck since it has no shoulders.  And they are expanding the bridges from two lanes each to three with full shoulders while maintaining two lanes of traffic on each bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 11:46:08 AM
An in progress example would be I-81 over the Potomac River.  It has much more traffic than this spot on I-95: 53320 vs 17500 via bridgereports.com.  And it has a narrower road deck since it has no shoulders.  And they are expanding the bridges from two lanes each to three with full shoulders while maintaining two lanes of traffic on each bridge.

AADT as of 2016 has the counts at 41000 on the south side and 37000 on the north:

South:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Halifax/Halifax_County_AADT_2016.pdf

North:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Northampton/Northampton_County_AADT_2016.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 11:53:01 AM
An in progress example would be I-81 over the Potomac River.  It has much more traffic than this spot on I-95: 53320 vs 17500 via bridgereports.com.  And it has a narrower road deck since it has no shoulders.  And they are expanding the bridges from two lanes each to three with full shoulders while maintaining two lanes of traffic on each bridge.

AADT as of 2016 has the counts at 41000 on the south side and 37000 on the north:

South:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Halifax/Halifax_County_AADT_2016.pdf

North:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Northampton/Northampton_County_AADT_2016.pdf
That's less than I-81. Not to mention, there's a full left shoulder on this bridge. It can certainly be widened.

What about the bridge replacement they did in Virginia just north of the state line? The one further south that NCDOT is doing right now? Bridge replacements and widenings -can- be done and have been done countless times. It's not a hard task for NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 12:07:48 PM
An in progress example would be I-81 over the Potomac River.  It has much more traffic than this spot on I-95: 53320 vs 17500 via bridgereports.com.  And it has a narrower road deck since it has no shoulders.  And they are expanding the bridges from two lanes each to three with full shoulders while maintaining two lanes of traffic on each bridge.

AADT as of 2016 has the counts at 41000 on the south side and 37000 on the north:

South:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Halifax/Halifax_County_AADT_2016.pdf

North:

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/imgdot/DOTTSUMaps/AADT_COUNTIES_2016/Northampton/Northampton_County_AADT_2016.pdf
That's less than I-81. Not to mention, there's a full left shoulder on this bridge. It can certainly be widened.

What about the bridge replacement they did in Virginia just north of the state line? The one further south that NCDOT is doing right now? Bridge replacements and widenings -can- be done and have been done countless times. It's not a hard task for NCDOT.

Yes, less than I-81 but, more than the 17500 mentioned by the previous poster.  Once again, not saying it cannot be done just saying there is a lot more than what is being considered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on July 12, 2019, 12:41:25 PM
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.
The complexity come from the amount of traffic that stretch of I-95 carries, sure close one span while the other is being worked and create a choke point where the alternatives are local roads, US 301 being the most logical but that is 2 lane rural road.  The other alternatives are either too far to be practical or as listed previously rural 2 lane back roads.
Mapmikey pointed out the release and water flow of the Roanoke River, we do get hurricanes here and that area is prone to flooding so, construction will be subject to weather delays no matter how you can plan.  Nevermind, that our fair share of wet weather is during peak construction times of the year.  We do have the exception of somewhat warmer winter but, that is also in flux.  Glad you brought up the Basnight Bridge, that was 3 years of construction after 30 years of lawsuits over environmental issues. 
By all means explain away these complexities.

At 1,150 feet long that is about the same length as the I-95 bridges over the Rappahannock River.  The latter are almost 100 feet high and the former is a low level bridge. 

The I-95 bridges over the Rappahannock River were widened to 3 lanes each way in the 1980s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 12:57:21 PM
I was referring to the poster who was complaining about the complexity of the I-95 Roanoke River bridges.
The complexity come from the amount of traffic that stretch of I-95 carries, sure close one span while the other is being worked and create a choke point where the alternatives are local roads, US 301 being the most logical but that is 2 lane rural road.  The other alternatives are either too far to be practical or as listed previously rural 2 lane back roads.
Mapmikey pointed out the release and water flow of the Roanoke River, we do get hurricanes here and that area is prone to flooding so, construction will be subject to weather delays no matter how you can plan.  Nevermind, that our fair share of wet weather is during peak construction times of the year.  We do have the exception of somewhat warmer winter but, that is also in flux.  Glad you brought up the Basnight Bridge, that was 3 years of construction after 30 years of lawsuits over environmental issues. 
By all means explain away these complexities.

At 1,150 feet long that is about the same length as the I-95 bridges over the Rappahannock River.  The latter are almost 100 feet high and the former is a low level bridge. 

The I-95 bridges over the Rappahannock River were widened to 3 lanes each way in the 1980s.

What's the explanation?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 12, 2019, 02:09:11 PM
Here's a video showing the construction sequence for the upcoming rehabilitation of the Green River bridges (1,050 feet long and 220+ feet high) on I-26 in Henderson County. The deck is being replaced and widened while maintaining traffic. Technically it will be wide enough to support an additional lane each direction, but I think it will require a design exception due to narrow shoulders. There is also the issue of the curve on the western side of the bridge not meeting today's requirements for design speed (signed as 50 mph eastbound), so it may not happen with that alignment anyway. The contract was supposed to be let last month, but it has been delayed a year due to funding issues.

https://vimeo.com/311545959 (https://vimeo.com/311545959)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 02:29:46 PM
Here's a video showing the construction sequence for the upcoming rehabilitation of the Green River bridges (1,050 feet long and 220+ feet high) on I-26 in Henderson County. The deck is being replaced and widened while maintaining traffic. Technically it will be wide enough to support an additional lane each direction, but I think it will require a design exception due to narrow shoulders. There is also the issue of the curve on the western side of the bridge not meeting today's requirements for design speed (signed as 50 mph eastbound), so it may not happen with that alignment anyway. The contract was supposed to be let last month, but it has been delayed a year due to funding issues.

https://vimeo.com/311545959 (https://vimeo.com/311545959)
That's a perfect example of how a bridge widening would occur on I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 03:44:04 PM
Here's a video showing the construction sequence for the upcoming rehabilitation of the Green River bridges (1,050 feet long and 220+ feet high) on I-26 in Henderson County. The deck is being replaced and widened while maintaining traffic. Technically it will be wide enough to support an additional lane each direction, but I think it will require a design exception due to narrow shoulders. There is also the issue of the curve on the western side of the bridge not meeting today's requirements for design speed (signed as 50 mph eastbound), so it may not happen with that alignment anyway. The contract was supposed to be let last month, but it has been delayed a year due to funding issues.

https://vimeo.com/311545959 (https://vimeo.com/311545959)
That's a perfect example of how a bridge widening would occur on I-95.

Good explanation for the construction but, that didn't add a lane, plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 03:59:22 PM
plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.
How the hell does that make any difference to how a widening would go?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 04:42:35 PM
plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.
How the hell does that make any difference to how a widening would go?

Really?  Anytime I-95 is shut down for an accident, that's just an accident, there are backups due to the amount of traffic on that one route. 

It has the nick name "Main Street of the East Coast" for a reason.  You think the transport industry is not going to have any input on what limitations are going to occur when, not if, the widening is going to occur.  That's what the hell!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 04:45:07 PM
plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.
How the hell does that make any difference to how a widening would go?

Really?  Anytime I-95 is shut down for an accident, that's just an accident, there are backups due to the amount of traffic on that one route. 

It has the nick name "Main Street of the East Coast" for a reason.  You think the transport industry is not going to have any input on what limitations are going to occur when, not if, the widening is going to occur.  That's what the hell!!
What about the bridge replacements further south of there? Same roadway. The bridge replacements in Emporia, VA that finished a few months ago, different state, but same roadway. The massive construction around Fredericksburg and the new Rappahannack River bridges. The Occoquan River Bridges were widened from 6 to 8-lanes in 2013. The Springfield Interchange in 2008. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement in 2008 - 2012.

All on I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 05:13:36 PM
plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.
How the hell does that make any difference to how a widening would go?

Really?  Anytime I-95 is shut down for an accident, that's just an accident, there are backups due to the amount of traffic on that one route. 

It has the nick name "Main Street of the East Coast" for a reason.  You think the transport industry is not going to have any input on what limitations are going to occur when, not if, the widening is going to occur.  That's what the hell!!
What about the bridge replacements further south of there? Same roadway. The bridge replacements in Emporia, VA that finished a few months ago, different state, but same roadway. The massive construction around Fredericksburg and the new Rappahannack River bridges. The Occoquan River Bridges were widened from 6 to 8-lanes in 2013. The Springfield Interchange in 2008. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement in 2008 - 2012.

All on I-95.

The Mixing Bowl took the better part of a decade and was a nightmare!!  It was started in '93!!!!  Driving between NC and PA and back saw the whole bloody thing from start to finish and had to time driving on it either O Dark thirty or on a really off weekend to prevent being stuck in traffic for 2+ hours.  So if you think NCDOT is not accounting for that mess and dreading taking the blame for it!!  LOL!!!!!

They just finished the Fortify project, the I-87 signs were the last part and then decided to start on widening 40 SE of Raleigh, they have signed alternates all the way out to 95 on 264/587 from I-540 near Durham!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 05:17:45 PM
^

What about VDOT widening the Occoquan River Bridges in 2013 from 3 to 4 lanes each way?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 06:08:32 PM
^

What about VDOT widening the Occoquan River Bridges in 2013 from 3 to 4 lanes each way?

Didn't drive 95 that year, thank God!!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 12, 2019, 06:12:29 PM
^^ The Occoquan bridges being 4 lanes dates back to at least 2002 (probably before then).  You would be referring to the 2010-2011 widening that added an (5th) auxiliary lane in each direction.  That work was done as part of the overall 4-lane project from Newington down to the river, but the bridge already had 4 lanes before then.  I remember it well...was living in Huntington at the time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 12, 2019, 07:02:47 PM

Good explanation for the construction but, that didn't add a lane, plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.

NCDOT's AADT data show 46,000 vehicles on that section of I-26, 17% being trucks. At the Roanoke River on I-95 it's 49,000 and 21% trucks. Comparing volumes, the busiest stretch of I-26 sees 22,000 more vehicles per day than the busiest section of I-95. I-26 isn't a rural mountain drive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 12, 2019, 07:44:13 PM

Good explanation for the construction but, that didn't add a lane, plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.

NCDOT's AADT data show 46,000 vehicles on that section of I-26, 17% being trucks. At the Roanoke River on I-95 it's 49,000 and 21% trucks. Comparing volumes, the busiest stretch of I-26 sees 22,000 more vehicles per day than the busiest section of I-95. I-26 isn't a rural mountain drive.

Links please, plus, is that busiest stretch of 26 with or at the 40 junction?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 08:24:21 PM
Links please
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280

NCDOT AADT
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 12, 2019, 09:05:00 PM
I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Nice article.  I could see most of the existing US 301 route being able to be upgraded to be I-95.  Much of it has or had frontage roads which would allow for the upgrade like what will be done for I-42/US 70 in the James City area.  The problem area is between Locust St and Grove St.  I suppose this is where the compromise route would have used a new alignment.  That route would have been ok until the route needs to to be expanded.  Expanding the compromise route likely would be much more expensive to build compared to expanding the route that exists now. 

But I would question whether the compromise route would have been much better than the route that was ultimately built since that too probably would have bypassed the section of highway with the most businesses along it or highest density of businesses.  But they would still be much closer to I-95.

Here I guessed at the smallest part of the route that would be bypassed.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1cS3AxNGyKWZD2ySzL8nVjBBnrIh8B93F&usp=sharing
And for giggles I combined that with a connection to make a Fayetteville inner loop.

I wonder how close your drawing is to what the last minute suggested routing was.  I wish that cold be dug up somewhere.

And it also reminds me to try to figure out why they never continued the CBD Loop(inner loop as you called it) past Ramsey Street.  A long time ago, I saw something that gavea general reason why and what it was supposed to do.  But tht was at least 15 years ago and I never saved that article.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on July 13, 2019, 01:10:33 PM
Links please
http://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5f6fe58c1d90482ab9107ccc03026280

NCDOT AADT

We will see what the future holds, :).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on July 13, 2019, 02:18:38 PM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.

To name a few of the longer ones...

- US-17 over Chowan River, 2 miles long
- NC-32 over Chowan River, 4 miles long
- US-64 Bypass over Croatan Sound, 6 miles long
- US-64 over Croatan Sound, 3 miles long
- US-64 over Roanoke Sound, 1 mile long
- NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, 3 miles long
- US-70 over Gallants Channel, 1 mile long
- I-140 over Cape Fear River, 1 mile long
- US-70 / US-17 over Neuse River, 3 miles long
- US-17 over Pamlico River, 3 miles long
- US-158 over Currituck Sound, 3 miles long

All those examples are in Eastern NC, I could name plenty of more in the western, more mountainous part of the state, and likely more I missed in the eastern part. Most of those were built in the last 20-30 years, a lot the past 10-15.

Not to mention, the proposed high-rise Cape Fear Skyway which would be almost 2 miles long, along with the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge which would build almost 7 miles of bridge over water and swamp.


I-140 over the Cape Fear River is closer to two miles. Love that bridge!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2019, 02:45:52 PM
if that is the most difficult bridge project you can find in N.C.
Oh please. There are countless bridges in North Carolina that are longer than 1,000 feet.

To name a few of the longer ones...

- US-17 over Chowan River, 2 miles long
- NC-32 over Chowan River, 4 miles long
- US-64 Bypass over Croatan Sound, 6 miles long
- US-64 over Croatan Sound, 3 miles long
- US-64 over Roanoke Sound, 1 mile long
- NC-12 over Oregon Inlet, 3 miles long
- US-70 over Gallants Channel, 1 mile long
- I-140 over Cape Fear River, 1 mile long
- US-70 / US-17 over Neuse River, 3 miles long
- US-17 over Pamlico River, 3 miles long
- US-158 over Currituck Sound, 3 miles long

All those examples are in Eastern NC, I could name plenty of more in the western, more mountainous part of the state, and likely more I missed in the eastern part. Most of those were built in the last 20-30 years, a lot the past 10-15.

Not to mention, the proposed high-rise Cape Fear Skyway which would be almost 2 miles long, along with the proposed Mid-Currituck Bridge which would build almost 7 miles of bridge over water and swamp.


I-140 over the Cape Fear River is closer to two miles. Love that bridge!
It appears there's actually two separate bridges crossing both branches of the river and both of them are 1.5 miles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on July 14, 2019, 11:34:45 PM
I am not sure if this is the same as the Roanoke Sound entry but what about US 64 over the Alligator River?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 15, 2019, 08:30:15 AM
I am not sure if this is the same as the Roanoke Sound entry but what about US 64 over the Alligator River?

Roanoke Sound is between Roanoke Island and Nags Head, so not the same.

But yes, 64 over the Alligator is a shade under 3 miles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 15, 2019, 10:22:11 AM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on July 22 in Wilmington to discuss extending Independence Boulevard from Randall Parkway to US-74.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-15-independence-boulevard-extension-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-15-independence-boulevard-extension-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 15, 2019, 06:00:51 PM

Good explanation for the construction but, that didn't add a lane, plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.

NCDOT's AADT data show 46,000 vehicles on that section of I-26, 17% being trucks. At the Roanoke River on I-95 it's 49,000 and 21% trucks. Comparing volumes, the busiest stretch of I-26 sees 22,000 more vehicles per day than the busiest section of I-95. I-26 isn't a rural mountain drive.

Links please, plus, is that busiest stretch of 26 with or at the 40 junction?

NCDOT 2017 Freeway AADT Volumes (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/NCDOT2017InterstateFreewayReport.pdf)
Web Map (https://arcg.is/1ynzbu)

South of I-40
Exit 31 to Exit 33: 84,000
Exit 33 to Exit 37: 85,000
Exit 37 to Exit 40: 82,000
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2019, 07:28:19 AM
A two-part article series on upcoming projects in the Rocky Mount area, which includes a timetable for building the I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange, as well as plans to rebuild the I-95/NC-4 interchange in Gold Rock.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html)

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 18, 2019, 03:33:39 PM
A two-part article series on upcoming projects in the Rocky Mount area, which includes a timetable for building the I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange, as well as plans to rebuild the I-95/NC-4 interchange in Gold Rock.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html)

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html)

As someone who used to use the Gold Rock interchange daily - I welcome this.  Now if they can also improve it by getting rid of some of the decrepit motels some closed others still open - that's even better!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 18, 2019, 06:25:25 PM
A two-part article series on upcoming projects in the Rocky Mount area, which includes a timetable for building the I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange, as well as plans to rebuild the I-95/NC-4 interchange in Gold Rock.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/16/Sunset-interchange-set-for-2023-completion.html)

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/07/17/Major-road-projects-slated-for-area.html)

As someone who used to use the Gold Rock interchange daily - I welcome this.  Now if they can also improve it by getting rid of some of the decrepit motels some closed others still open - that's even better!

I remember me and my family stopping there to eat at Shoney’s back in January 2002 during a trip to Orange, VA. It seemed like a decent area back then. It’s sad how far that place has fallen. The Nash County sheriff has been trying to clean up the area, but Rocky Mount hasn’t been all that cooperative. The city government there is a dumpster fire now. I’ll leave it at that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2019, 07:35:15 AM
An update on the Truckstop Road bridge replacement over I-95 in Kenly.

http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/new-bridge-halfway-complete,183300 (http://www.johnstoniannews.com/stories/new-bridge-halfway-complete,183300)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 19, 2019, 05:53:26 PM
The US-401 bridge over Little River northeast of Rolesville has reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/us-401-louisburg-rd-bridge-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/us-401-louisburg-rd-bridge-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 19, 2019, 07:42:25 PM
In looking up some items for the Yonahlossee Overlook for my Blue Ridge Parkway ride along at gn .org, I came across two great stories that give some great background on the Yonahlossee Road, the precursor to US 221, and how it was really one of the first tourist roads into the High Country.  Also learned of the Black Bear Trail a proposed touring route during the "Auto Trail" era from Canada to Florida.

https://wncmagazine.com/feature/little_parkway

https://www.averyjournal.com/avery/yonahlossee-road-black-bear-trail-crest-of-the-blue-ridge/article_d92de80f-a708-5d46-8af4-16cb66ff70d6.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 20, 2019, 09:34:29 AM
Cost to settle landowners lawsuits could cost NCDOT more than $1 billion (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232877827.html) The News & Observer

"Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 30-year-old law that let the Department of Transportation reserve land for future roads without actually buying it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. [...] As of Friday, the state has reached settlements in about 360 Map Act cases, totaling $290 million."

Additionally...

"In more than a decade leading up to 2016, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice. In the last three years, that number has ballooned to $225 million a year."

So, expect more projects to be delayed....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2019, 09:42:41 AM
Cost to settle landowners lawsuits could cost NCDOT more than $1 billion (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232877827.html) The News & Observer

"Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 30-year-old law that let the Department of Transportation reserve land for future roads without actually buying it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. [...] As of Friday, the state has reached settlements in about 360 Map Act cases, totaling $290 million."

Additionally...

"In more than a decade leading up to 2016, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice. In the last three years, that number has ballooned to $225 million a year."

So, expect more projects to be delayed....
:bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2019, 12:29:31 PM
Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9748604,-77.2393941,3a,75y,9.59h,84.1t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D91.0123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) imagery from May 2019 has been posted along the small 2-mile section of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass that opened in March 2019.

Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9188263,-77.2361341,3a,75y,181.22h,81.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.16936%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) imagery from May 2019 has also been posted along the US-17 Maysville Bypass that opened in July 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 22, 2019, 11:45:14 AM
Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9748604,-77.2393941,3a,75y,9.59h,84.1t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D91.0123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) imagery from May 2019 has been posted along the small 2-mile section of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass that opened in March 2019.

Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9188263,-77.2361341,3a,75y,181.22h,81.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.16936%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) imagery from May 2019 has also been posted along the US-17 Maysville Bypass that opened in July 2018.

Until that other carriageway on the Maysville Bypass opens (which looks to be soon), I'm just gonna enjoy the fact that NC has at least one Super-2 left  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 22, 2019, 12:24:44 PM
Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9748604,-77.2393941,3a,75y,9.59h,84.1t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWvlta8F0xV4LfRXlcHdAKg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D91.0123%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100) imagery from May 2019 has been posted along the small 2-mile section of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass that opened in March 2019.

Google Street View (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.9188263,-77.2361341,3a,75y,181.22h,81.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D2aX44yPCrZ6T2FfkN5X3kg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D134.16936%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) imagery from May 2019 has also been posted along the US-17 Maysville Bypass that opened in July 2018.

Until that other carriageway on the Maysville Bypass opens (which looks to be soon), I'm just gonna enjoy the fact that NC has at least one Super-2 left  :-D

US 601 Bypass of Dobson might be a super-2.

US 64 from west of Taylorsville to nearly I-40 has a super-2 feel but does have a fair number of at-grades.  Not sure it has any driveways, however...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 22, 2019, 12:30:59 PM
US 601 Bypass of Dobson might be a super-2.
It has that interchange, but it also has driveway connections and at-grade intersections.

US 64 from west of Taylorsville to nearly I-40 has a super-2 feel but does have a fair number of at-grades.  Not sure it has any driveways, however...
Depends on your definition of a super-two. It could work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on July 23, 2019, 06:15:20 AM

US 64 from west of Taylorsville to nearly I-40 has a super-2 feel but does have a fair number of at-grades.  Not sure it has any driveways, however...
Depends on your definition of a super-two. It could work.

I find that Super-2 on 64 very interesting. It is obvious that they initially planned on 4 lanes by the looks of the grading and bridge construction. I wonder when the second carriageway idea was scrapped?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 23, 2019, 11:00:15 AM

US 64 from west of Taylorsville to nearly I-40 has a super-2 feel but does have a fair number of at-grades.  Not sure it has any driveways, however...
Depends on your definition of a super-two. It could work.

I find that Super-2 on 64 very interesting. It is obvious that they initially planned on 4 lanes by the looks of the grading and bridge construction. I wonder when the second carriageway idea was scrapped?

That was a thing with NC (and judging by that Maysville Bypass upthread a bit, still is). NCDOT for the most part designed overpasses and such to have room for an extra carriageway just in case such is warranted in the future. I remember when the US 1 Henderson Bypass was still 2 lanes. The bridges over it was designed with 4 lanes in mind (though US 1 right at NC 39 was 4 lanes when I first saw it).

The second carriageway for that US 64 segment might have not been scrapped at all... NC just feels there isn't a need to dualize it yet.

The Henderson Bypass was built in the early 1950's but wasn't dualized until the 1990's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2019, 12:01:40 PM

US 64 from west of Taylorsville to nearly I-40 has a super-2 feel but does have a fair number of at-grades.  Not sure it has any driveways, however...
Depends on your definition of a super-two. It could work.

I find that Super-2 on 64 very interesting. It is obvious that they initially planned on 4 lanes by the looks of the grading and bridge construction. I wonder when the second carriageway idea was scrapped?

That was a thing with NC (and judging by that Maysville Bypass upthread a bit, still is). NCDOT for the most part designed overpasses and such to have room for an extra carriageway just in case such is warranted in the future. I remember when the US 1 Henderson Bypass was still 2 lanes. The bridges over it was designed with 4 lanes in mind (though US 1 right at NC 39 was 4 lanes when I first saw it).

The second carriageway for that US 64 segment might have not been scrapped at all... NC just feels there isn't a need to dualize it yet.

The Henderson Bypass was built in the early 1950's but wasn't dualized until the 1990's.
Well, the Maysville Bypass is going to be 4-lanes at the end of the year or early next year once the entire corridor is 4-laned and the Pollocksville Bypass opens. It's only 2-lanes now because they determined they could use one carriageway early to at least route the two-lane traffic around Maysville, and they did. It was never intended for 2-lanes now, 4-lanes later. It was just simply 4-lanes at start, but open two-lanes during construction to help flow traffic better immediately.

Regarding the other super-two bypasses that indeed were intended for later dualization, a few more examples are parts of US-1 south of Raleigh, US-421 southeast of Greensboro, and US-17 around Edenton. Built in the 60s and 70s and dualized in the 90s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 23, 2019, 12:33:38 PM
Another good example is US 70 between Greensboro and Hillsborough (now I-85); also today's US 25 Bypass south of I-26; it appears at least some of the new US 21 around Huntersville, etc. was Super-2 initially though the southern part had driveways by 1960 per HistoricAerials; the original US 158 Bypass of Henderson may also have been a Super-2
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 23, 2019, 04:41:08 PM
A public meeting is being held on July 29 in Holly Ridge regarding proposed improvements to two intersections on US-17: NC-172 and Old Folkstone Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-23-onslow-county-intersection-improvements-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-23-onslow-county-intersection-improvements-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 25, 2019, 02:42:25 PM
A public meeting is being held tonight in Wilmington regarding two proposed projects. The first is improvements to NC-133 between Division Drive and I-140. The second is constructing a roundabout at the intersection of NC-133 and North 23rd Street.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-25-castle-hayne-road-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-25-castle-hayne-road-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 25, 2019, 09:08:24 PM
Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/09-17-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/I-4400BB_C_Henderson/I-4400BB/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for the Henderson County portion of the upcoming I-26 widening have been posted. Better hurry and get your pictures of the Bat Cave exit (https://goo.gl/maps/SkGcZwL53jQiKCdu5) signs before they disappear.

(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/EaMTsoYxfPpuw/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on July 25, 2019, 11:00:36 PM
Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/09-17-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/I-4400BB_C_Henderson/I-4400BB/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for the Henderson County portion of the upcoming I-26 widening have been posted. Better hurry and get your pictures of the Bat Cave exit (https://goo.gl/maps/SkGcZwL53jQiKCdu5) signs before they disappear.

(http://giphygifs.s3.amazonaws.com/media/EaMTsoYxfPpuw/giphy.gif)
Too bad that Bat Cave could not be added to an auxiliary sign.

There are more and more replaced BGS's in suburban areas that have street names instead of destinations on them.  This happened on I-69 near Ft. Wayne, especially at the US 27/IN 3 interchange (Exit 311).  Ft. Wayne and Kendallville used to be the destination listings on the BGS's; now it is Lima Rd. for both US 27 South/IN 3 North.  I have read before that this may be a preferred action by either AASHTO or FHWA (not sure at the moment).

Also, the distance to Asheville should be 22 (or 23) instead of 25 on the one post-interchange mileage sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on July 26, 2019, 12:48:47 AM
https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/ncdot-gets-ok-for-short-term-erosion-fix/

Quote
NCDOT Gets OK for Short-Term Erosion Fix — The Hatteras ferry terminal on the north end of Ocracoke Island, shown here in December 2018, has experienced rapid erosion during the last year.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has in the works a short-term fix for erosion at the Hatteras ferry terminal on Ocracoke Island but is also working with the National Park Service on a long-term solution.


During its meeting at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Beaufort Lab on Pivers Island Wednesday, the Coastal Resources Commission granted NCDOT a variance to build a temporary erosion control structure that exceeds the permitted height and will stack the larger than permitted sandbags perpendicular as well as the permitted parallel at the ferry terminal within the Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 26, 2019, 01:03:55 PM
The Buncombe County portion of the I-26 widening project was awarded (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/07-16-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204266%20BuncombeHenderson%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) today. Construction can start next month to widen eight miles of I-26 to eight lanes between I-40 and Airport Rd. Most of the construction should be wrapped up by November 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 26, 2019, 05:49:55 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the new 10th Street Connector in Greenville. Images dated April 2019.

https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9 (https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 05:56:12 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the new 10th Street Connector in Greenville. Images dated April 2019.

https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9 (https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9)
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6082157,-77.3843695,3a,75y,286.24h,79.55t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFAEJUGiA_epsvhYhGG2VaQ!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Looks like the guy who did the March 2019 imagery got lost and ended up on the road when it was still closed to traffic. AND they still posted it  :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2019, 06:44:32 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the new 10th Street Connector in Greenville. Images dated April 2019.

https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9 (https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9)

Just saw that, thanks. Finally, all of it is updated!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on July 27, 2019, 12:10:15 AM
Google Streetview is now showing the new 10th Street Connector in Greenville. Images dated April 2019.

https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9 (https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9)

Just saw that, thanks. Finally, all of it is updated!
Dangit. That means that horizontal five section signal is gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6072175,-77.3799057,3a,39.3y,344.01h,102.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swz462WIURly7ci6zb86Txw!2e0!5s20130501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
That must've been the only one in the entire state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2019, 12:57:29 AM
Google Streetview is now showing the new 10th Street Connector in Greenville. Images dated April 2019.

https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9 (https://goo.gl/maps/bRqYsuuZXq6AQ96f9)

Just saw that, thanks. Finally, all of it is updated!
Dangit. That means that horizontal five section signal is gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6072175,-77.3799057,3a,39.3y,344.01h,102.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swz462WIURly7ci6zb86Txw!2e0!5s20130501T000000!7i13312!8i6656
That must've been the only one in the entire state.

There's more on Allen Rd/Dickinson Ave/Greenville Blvd junction:

Well, it's not 5-signal but it's horizontals.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5770144,-77.4313029,3a,75y,109.98h,91.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3tD5Y-bxX0wC0fU2Lfv70A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2019, 01:12:52 PM
A preconstruction public meeting is being held in Raleigh this Thursday regarding the I-440 widening project, as well as a grade separation at Hillsborough Street and Blue Ridge Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-29-i-440-preconstruction-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-29-i-440-preconstruction-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 29, 2019, 01:42:28 PM
A preconstruction public meeting is being held in Raleigh this Thursday regarding the I-440 widening project, as well as a grade separation at Hillsborough Street and Blue Ridge Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-29-i-440-preconstruction-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-29-i-440-preconstruction-public-meeting.aspx)

I swear, that prohect is way overdue and I think it has been edited many times. Construction was to start in 2018 but it got pushed back twice.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 29, 2019, 04:59:49 PM
I wish they'd post the map showing the Blue Ridge/Hillsborough/railroad grade separation. It will be interesting to see how they propose to pull that one off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 29, 2019, 08:15:46 PM
^ I sent the project manager an email about the lack of maps for that Blue Ridge/Hillsborough project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 30, 2019, 08:27:47 PM
^ I sent the project manager an email about the lack of maps for that Blue Ridge/Hillsborough project.

Thanks
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 31, 2019, 02:30:42 AM
Split out the recent I-40/I-77 interchange posts, after I recalled that we had a old thread on the subject.  Just had to find it first.  :sombrero:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7423.0
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2019, 04:15:16 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen I-26 between Brevard Road in Asheville and the Henderson County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-31-contract-awarded-i-26-buncombe.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-07-31-contract-awarded-i-26-buncombe.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 31, 2019, 04:29:31 PM
I wish they'd post the map showing the Blue Ridge/Hillsborough/railroad grade separation. It will be interesting to see how they propose to pull that one off.

The project manager got back to me saying that the map has been posted, though they label it as "Map 6/Walnut St to Wade Ave" (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-improvements/Documents/pre-construction-map-6-walnut-wade.pdf) on the I-440 Open House Maps (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-improvements/Pages/2019-pre-construction-open-house-maps.aspx) page.

Looks like the plan is for Blue Ridge Rd to go underneath Beryl Rd, the rail tracks, and Hillsborough.  A 5-lane connector road in the northeast quadrant will connect Blue Ridge Rd with Hillsborough.  The Gregory Poole company (SW quadrant of Blue Ridge/Beryl) will have a replacement access opposite Pylon Drive.  Pylon Drive will also serve as the connector between Blue Ridge Rd and Beryl Rd.

Though some right-of-way will be needed along all roadways, the only buildings that will be taken out are the Shell station & Quality Mart in the southeast quadrant of Blue Ridge/Beryl.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 01, 2019, 04:21:15 PM
Heads up for those that might use the Pope Road exit on I-95 in Dunn.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on August 02, 2019, 07:12:59 AM
Heads up for those that might use the Pope Road exit on I-95 in Dunn.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx)

When the heck is NCDOT going to award the contract to widen this outdated train wreck of an interstate?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2019, 07:15:21 AM
^ When you have a couple billion dollars to give them...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on August 02, 2019, 07:32:06 AM
^ When you have a couple billion dollars to give them...

I thought I had heard that it was really going to happen soon, specifically in the area from BL 95 north of Fayetteville to I-40 at Benson, which would include Dunn.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 02, 2019, 07:38:20 AM
Yes, that specific section will be happening soon, though Dunn to Benson won't go to contract until next year.  But that's the only section currently funded.  Lumberton to Fayetteville is also "actively" proposed, but that won't happen until "after 2027"...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 02, 2019, 11:51:47 AM
Heads up for those that might use the Pope Road exit on I-95 in Dunn.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-01-harnett-county-i-95-bridge-damaged.aspx)

When the heck is NCDOT going to award the contract to widen this outdated train wreck of an interstate?
Two contracts for two segments totaling 25 miles are being awarded this fall and next summer actually. Widening to 8-lanes and replacing most overpasses and redesigning most interchanges in that 25 mile section between I-40 and Business I-95 are apart of this $709 million project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Pages/default.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 02, 2019, 02:49:18 PM
The NC 24/27 Troy Bypass in Montgomery County is to open next week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 02, 2019, 09:21:52 PM
The NC 24/27 Troy Bypass in Montgomery County is to open next week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx)
Dang, only $45 million for 6.6 miles? That's only $6.8 million per mile... Granted, it's not a full freeway but still is new location divided highway.

Disagree with the speed limit only being 55 mph though, should be the maximum allowable 60 mph given it's a limited-access roadway. The US-17 widening south of New Bern is using the existing non-limited-access highway and even that's going to be 60 mph. Wouldn't be shocked if they increase it in a few years.

Then again, the 2 signals on the bypass could have impacted the decision to raise it... IMO, it could be 60 mph on the straightaways and lower to 55 mph by the signals, or just hold 60 mph through the signals. Even Virginia does that on non-limited-access stretches, 60 mph thru signals. Florida will post 65 mph on non-limited-access stretches and lower to 55 mph near the signals then go back up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on August 03, 2019, 01:00:24 PM
NCDOT to move hundreds of graves in Lee County for highway expansion: https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook (https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on August 03, 2019, 05:33:35 PM
NCDOT to move hundreds of graves in Lee County for highway expansion: https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook (https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

That's a bummer. I wish they bypassed it because I was thinking it was a non-starter at first.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 03, 2019, 05:40:31 PM
NCDOT to move hundreds of graves in Lee County for highway expansion: https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook (https://abc11.com/5438745/?ex_cid=TA_WTVD_FB&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5d45939fffeb9a00013b5d82&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

That's a bummer. I wish they bypassed it because I was thinking it was a non-starter at first.
It would be a bit of a task to bypass it... for one you have the interchange with US-421 / NC-87 to the right, and different developments and warehouses all around it. If it was in a rural area, I could see a bypass being appropriate, but here, relocation of the graves is the best option. It sucks, it really does and I completely understand the position the people affected are in, but there's no other good options.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on August 03, 2019, 08:09:49 PM
In Greenville, I see the 10th st connector is complete and Farmville Blvd renamed to 10th st, why not rename Stantonsburg Rd 10 st and have Stantonsburg Rd end at the highway? That would gratefully relieve confusion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 04, 2019, 11:00:36 AM
The NC 24/27 Troy Bypass in Montgomery County is to open next week:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-02-troy-bypass-opens-next-week.aspx)
Dang, only $45 million for 6.6 miles? That's only $6.8 million per mile... Granted, it's not a full freeway but still is new location divided highway.

Disagree with the speed limit only being 55 mph though, should be the maximum allowable 60 mph given it's a limited-access roadway. The US-17 widening south of New Bern is using the existing non-limited-access highway and even that's going to be 60 mph. Wouldn't be shocked if they increase it in a few years.

Then again, the 2 signals on the bypass could have impacted the decision to raise it... IMO, it could be 60 mph on the straightaways and lower to 55 mph by the signals, or just hold 60 mph through the signals. Even Virginia does that on non-limited-access stretches, 60 mph thru signals. Florida will post 65 mph on non-limited-access stretches and lower to 55 mph near the signals then go back up.

The Elizabethtown and Kenansville bypasses are both rural divided highways and they both only carry 55 MPH Speed Limits, that's probably where the NCDOT got the idea for the Troy Bypass. US 17 is more of a long distance corridor, the 55 MPH bypasses are probably speed traps for the locals.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 05, 2019, 08:42:46 AM
Two Greensboro questions.

(1) Does the orphan segment of Old US 421, between I-85 and I-40, have a hidden route number, primary or secondary? It doesn't seem to be signed as anything.

(2) Do we have a definite decision that Business 85 signage will be retained? It doesn't seem to be going away.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on August 05, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
Two Greensboro questions.

(1) Does the orphan segment of Old US 421, between I-85 and I-40, have a hidden route number, primary or secondary? It doesn't seem to be signed as anything.

Old 421 is logged as SR 3762. It is a secondary state maintained route now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 05, 2019, 09:42:56 AM
Two Greensboro questions.

(1) Does the orphan segment of Old US 421, between I-85 and I-40, have a hidden route number, primary or secondary? It doesn't seem to be signed as anything.

Old 421 is logged as SR 3762. It is a secondary state maintained route now.

definitely posted as such...

https://goo.gl/maps/aBRD93MbKKSemhBv8
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 05, 2019, 12:32:04 PM
Two Greensboro questions.

(1) Does the orphan segment of Old US 421, between I-85 and I-40, have a hidden route number, primary or secondary? It doesn't seem to be signed as anything.

(2) Do we have a definite decision that Business 85 signage will be retained? It doesn't seem to be going away.
It may be a while as for Business 85 removal from signage. The contractor that is building the last section of the Greensboro Loop to be opened between US 29 and Lawndale Drive is, according to the sign plans, also responsible for removing references to Business 85 through Greensboro on I-40 as well as putting new I-840 signage up along the Loop south of US 29. For example, this is the sign plan at Randleman Road:
(http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i40signplanrandlemannob85c.jpg)

Currently, the Loop project is to be completed in November 2022 and while there's nothing to stop the sign changes from happening earlier, I suspect those will be done at the same time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 05, 2019, 06:53:39 PM
Two Greensboro questions.

(1) Does the orphan segment of Old US 421, between I-85 and I-40, have a hidden route number, primary or secondary? It doesn't seem to be signed as anything.

Old 421 is logged as SR 3762. It is a secondary state maintained route now.
Thanks. That's what I expected the answer to be. It's not a big deal, obviously, but I would have put a primary number on  the road, similar to what's planned for the to-be-orphaned section of I-74 when the Winston-Salem northeast loop is completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Gnutella on August 07, 2019, 05:44:39 AM
Last week I took a drive on U.S. 74/I-74 from Shelby to Whiteville, and I haz to ask: Beez there any plans to upgrade the segment from Charlotte to Rockingham to a controlled-access highway? I know there's a tollway near Monroe, but what about the rest of the way?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 07, 2019, 07:43:27 AM
Yeah, slowly upgrading US 74 to either a freeway or expressway standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 07, 2019, 08:34:05 AM
very slow
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 07, 2019, 02:47:49 PM
There is a stip item for design of the Wadesboro bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 08, 2019, 04:32:20 PM
Speaking of the STIP and slow, even more projects have been delayed in the draft STIP. And speaking of US 74, the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass have been delayed three years and won't get started until 2024, eleven years after the first section started construction.

I haven't had time to check it out too thoroughly, but it looks like delays everywhere. I-40, I-85, I-95 widenings, on and on.

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT STIP 20-29 January 2019 / August 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2019, 06:16:53 PM
A public meeting is being held on August 13 in Raleigh to discuss widening NC-50 between I-540 and just north of NC-98.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-creedmoor-rd-widening-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-creedmoor-rd-widening-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 08, 2019, 08:33:23 PM
Speaking of the STIP and slow, even more projects have been delayed in the draft STIP. And speaking of US 74, the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass have been delayed three years and won't get started until 2024, eleven years after the first section started construction.

I haven't had time to check it out too thoroughly, but it looks like delays everywhere. I-40, I-85, I-95 widenings, on and on.

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT STIP 20-29 January 2019 / August 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)

That list is a real buzzkill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 08, 2019, 09:16:39 PM
Speaking of the STIP and slow, even more projects have been delayed in the draft STIP. And speaking of US 74, the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass have been delayed three years and won't get started until 2024, eleven years after the first section started construction.
I haven't had time to check it out too thoroughly, but it looks like delays everywhere. I-40, I-85, I-95 widenings, on and on.
CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT STIP 20-29 January 2019 / August 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)
That list is a real buzzkill.

Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so?  Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 09, 2019, 12:53:00 AM
Speaking of the STIP and slow, even more projects have been delayed in the draft STIP. And speaking of US 74, the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass have been delayed three years and won't get started until 2024, eleven years after the first section started construction.

I haven't had time to check it out too thoroughly, but it looks like delays everywhere. I-40, I-85, I-95 widenings, on and on.

CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT STIP 20-29 January 2019 / August 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)

That list is a real buzzkill.
Looks like North Carolina is beginning to fall to the level that Virginia is at for funding, at least for rural projects.

This is a shame, though hopefully they’ll get it together eventually.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 09, 2019, 04:57:02 AM
A public meeting is being held on August 13 in Raleigh to discuss widening NC-50 between I-540 and just north of NC-98.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-creedmoor-rd-widening-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-08-creedmoor-rd-widening-public-meeting.aspx)

I drove this corridor regularly 6 years ago when I had a summer internship with NCDOT.  NC 98 seemed to be the north end of the heavy traffic.

I experienced much more congestion on NC 50 between Timber Dr in Garner and NC 42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 09, 2019, 06:00:35 AM
Speaking of the STIP and slow, even more projects have been delayed in the draft STIP. And speaking of US 74, the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass have been delayed three years and won't get started until 2024, eleven years after the first section started construction.
I haven't had time to check it out too thoroughly, but it looks like delays everywhere. I-40, I-85, I-95 widenings, on and on.
CHANGES BETWEEN THE DRAFT STIP 20-29 January 2019 / August 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Documents/2020-2029-stip-changes.pdf)
That list is a real buzzkill.

Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so?  Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP?

The two primary reasons they gave for the project delays are Map Act settlements and hurricanes.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232877827.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232877827.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 09, 2019, 06:38:10 AM
There are the costs mentioned below, plus I think the NCDOT scheduled more projects than they had funding for before all of this started hitting. It doesn't help that we're spending millions of dollars on projects to add shoulders to roads with 10,000 cars per day so we can throw up some blue Interstate shields. Priorities.

Cost to settle landowners lawsuits could cost NCDOT more than $1 billion (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article232877827.html) The News & Observer

"Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 30-year-old law that let the Department of Transportation reserve land for future roads without actually buying it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. [...] As of Friday, the state has reached settlements in about 360 Map Act cases, totaling $290 million."

Additionally...

"In more than a decade leading up to 2016, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice. In the last three years, that number has ballooned to $225 million a year."

So, expect more projects to be delayed....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2019, 08:05:04 AM
That list is a real buzzkill.
Have they been issuing massive amounts of general obligation bonds to help fund all these recent projects in the last 10 years or so?  Rising amounts of debt service taking more and more funding from the TIP?
The two primary reasons they gave for the project delays are Map Act settlements and hurricanes.
Sounds like excuses to me.  A billion dollars of lawsuit settlements for advance right-of-way acquisition?  Seems to me the more logical outcome would be simply being restricted in the future from doing this, and on current projects they would simply utilize the right-of-way that was already acquired.  I don't see where they would be successfully sued for a billion dollars.

Repairing hurricane damage to roads and bridges gets huge amounts of federal funding from FEMA, which is extra federal funding over and above normal FHWA allocations.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 09, 2019, 08:23:08 AM
Quote from: Beltway
Sounds like excuses to me.  A billion dollars of lawsuit settlements for advance right-of-way acquisition?  Seems to me the more logical outcome would be simply being restricted in the future from doing this, and on current projects they would simply utilize the right-of-way that was already acquired.  I don't see where they would be successfully sued for a billion dollars.

Given the numbers for completed settlements plus those still in the queue and lawsuits yet-to-be-filed, half-a-billion is the minimum, and a billion is not out of the question.

Quote
Repairing hurricane damage to roads and bridges gets huge amounts of federal funding from FEMA, which is extra federal funding over and above normal FHWA allocations.

But...in my experience...still isn't enough to "make things whole again".  FEMA typically doesn't reimburse 100%.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 09, 2019, 08:25:55 AM
It had been posted before about political will on completing the Shelby Bypass.  As someone who lives 30 miles north off of NC18, I can tell you in reality, up until about 3-5 years ago, the local business and money interests in Shelby did NOT want this bypass.  With the NC Speaker of the House being a local, desire by business interests to drag this out may be in play.  It was not until the super Walmart and the distribution center off of NC226 opened that traffic on Dixon became an issue.  If it was not for NCDots desire for a Charlotte to Asheville interstate and those 2 Walmart traffic generating nodes, this bypass would have not even started.  Big money wants you to be stuck on Dixon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2019, 08:49:31 AM
Quote from: Beltway
Sounds like excuses to me.  A billion dollars of lawsuit settlements for advance right-of-way acquisition?  Seems to me the more logical outcome would be simply being restricted in the future from doing this, and on current projects they would simply utilize the right-of-way that was already acquired.  I don't see where they would be successfully sued for a billion dollars.
Given the numbers for completed settlements plus those still in the queue and lawsuits yet-to-be-filed, half-a-billion is the minimum, and a billion is not out of the question.
What would they be suing for in the first place?  The state acquired the right-of-way.  Who is being damaged by the right-of-way sitting there not yet utilized?

I think one of the last ones in Virginia was southern VA-288, where the right-of-way was acquired thru advance right-of-way acquisition in the late 60s and not used until the late 80s.  I can see the advantages and disadvantages, but actionable in a court of law?

Quote
Repairing hurricane damage to roads and bridges gets huge amounts of federal funding from FEMA, which is extra federal funding over and above normal FHWA allocations.
But...in my experience...still isn't enough to "make things whole again".  FEMA typically doesn't reimburse 100%.
That is true, and it operates by reimbursement, so it may take months or even a year or more, but it does typically cover the vast majority.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 09, 2019, 09:44:08 AM

What would they be suing for in the first place?  The state acquired the right-of-way.  Who is being damaged by the right-of-way sitting there not yet utilized?

Did you read the article?

"Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 30-year-old law that let the Department of Transportation reserve land for future roads without actually buying it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling on the Map Act opened the way for hundreds of landowners to seek compensation for property the NCDOT had locked up for years."

We're still waiting on federal money from Matthew three years ago. What about areas that didn't receive a federal disaster declaration? US 401 in June. How much to rebuild this road you've never heard of in Polk County and the failing drainage system above it on I-26?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 09, 2019, 10:16:09 AM
What would they be suing for in the first place?  The state acquired the right-of-way.  Who is being damaged by the right-of-way sitting there not yet utilized?
The state never acquired the right of way, they created a protected corridor and restricted rights of land owners like building a subdivision, etc. without properly reimbursing them.

I agree, if the state owns the right of way, then that’s the states to do what they want with. But the state didn’t own it or pay for it yet still forced restrictions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2019, 01:28:52 PM
What would they be suing for in the first place?  The state acquired the right-of-way.  Who is being damaged by the right-of-way sitting there not yet utilized?
Did you read the article?
"Three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled that a 30-year-old law that let the Department of Transportation reserve land for future roads without actually buying it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property. The ruling on the Map Act opened the way for hundreds of landowners to seek compensation for property the NCDOT had locked up for years."
Many counties all over the country do that all the time, restricting development types and patterns and quantities, without compensating any landowners in the vicinity.

Are they prevented from farming and ranching on that land?  Are they prevented from living in rental properties on that land?

We're still waiting on federal money from Matthew three years ago. What about areas that didn't receive a federal disaster declaration? US 401 in June. How much to rebuild this road you've never heard of in Polk County and the failing drainage system above it on I-26?
What happened to that highway?

According to the rainfall basin from Matthew there was no significant impact that far west --
https://www.weather.gov/chs/HurricaneMatthew-Oct2016
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 09, 2019, 04:29:43 PM
In the last few years North Carolina thunderstorms seem have become more violent (climate change, I suppose). There have been many cases of storms dumping multiple inches of rain in an hour, triggering flash floods and washing out roads, especially in places where older bridges are still in place. These are purely local events, so the federal government doesn't provide any assistance through FEMA. A single event of this kind is not a big hit to the budget, but if NCDOT has thirty of them it does make a difference.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 09, 2019, 06:29:51 PM
Tropical storms and tropical storm remnants that cause massive rainfall is a fact of life in the southeast and middle Atlantic states, thruout U.S. history.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 10, 2019, 03:20:23 PM

We're still waiting on federal money from Matthew three years ago. What about areas that didn't receive a federal disaster declaration? US 401 in June. How much to rebuild this road you've never heard of in Polk County and the failing drainage system above it on I-26?
What happened to that highway?

According to the rainfall basin from Matthew there was no significant impact that far west --
https://www.weather.gov/chs/HurricaneMatthew-Oct2016

It was not from Matthew or Florence, that's the point, just lots of rain recently. Same for US 401 in June. The video shows it closed in January 2019 if you bothered to watch it. Just massive rainfall that has led to landslides and wash-outs that aren't covered by a federal disaster declaration and is paid for by the state.

This was from an evening storm that wasn't spawned by a tropical system.

(https://www.blueridgenow.com/galleryimage/NC/20180519/PHOTOGALLERY/519009974/PH/0/29/PH-519009974.jpg&maxW=900&maxH=900&cacheBuster=%7B3B7AF391-E7B3-4E0F-9B2C-EEA3F9B56812%7D)

(http://static-21.sinclairstoryline.com/resources/media/22f11c47-d15d-4590-9797-c1f323ef9e2a-large16x9_IMG_0111.JPG?1526786176230)

“NCDOT has spent $6.6 million on repairs associated to storm damage, not including repairs to Howard Gap Road,”  Uchiyama said (https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2019/05/19/a-year-later/).

Not to mention all of the other washouts, culverts, etc. that are replaced.

Contract awarded to clear massive Highway 9 landslide (https://wlos.com/news/local/contract-awarded-to-clear-massive-highway-9-landslide) (June 5, 2018; $1.49 million)

NCDOT clears nearly 200,000 trees after [winter] storms (https://www.blueridgenow.com/news/20190313/ncdot-clears-nearly-200000-trees-after-storms)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 10, 2019, 03:37:29 PM
We're still waiting on federal money from Matthew three years ago. What about areas that didn't receive a federal disaster declaration? US 401 in June. How much to rebuild this road you've never heard of in Polk County and the failing drainage system above it on I-26?
What happened to that highway?
According to the rainfall basin from Matthew there was no significant impact that far west -
https://www.weather.gov/chs/HurricaneMatthew-Oct2016
It was not from Matthew or Florence, that's the point, just lots of rain recently. Same for US 401 in June. The video shows it closed in January 2019 if you bothered to watch it. Just massive rainfall that has led to landslides and wash-outs that aren't covered by a federal disaster declaration and is paid for by the state.
This was from an evening storm that wasn't spawned by a tropical system.
Those kind of storm events happen all over the country.  Nasty summer thunderstorms, high winds, trees falling on roads, sometimes flash floods (West Virginia has a lot of them).  Massive river flooding in the Midwest and plains states.

Storms don't have to be tropical to be covered by FEMA disaster funding.  Back when I was working in VDOT IT on the maintenance management systems, one of my tasks was to compile storm damage data for highways and bridges that had been damaged in a storm, to send to FEMA for federal reimbursement for emergency repair projects.  Some of the storms were local and not tropical and we usually got most of the costs covered by FEMA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 10, 2019, 05:53:54 PM
We're still waiting on federal money from Matthew three years ago. What about areas that didn't receive a federal disaster declaration? US 401 in June. How much to rebuild this road you've never heard of in Polk County and the failing drainage system above it on I-26?
What happened to that highway?
According to the rainfall basin from Matthew there was no significant impact that far west -
https://www.weather.gov/chs/HurricaneMatthew-Oct2016
It was not from Matthew or Florence, that's the point, just lots of rain recently. Same for US 401 in June. The video shows it closed in January 2019 if you bothered to watch it. Just massive rainfall that has led to landslides and wash-outs that aren't covered by a federal disaster declaration and is paid for by the state.
This was from an evening storm that wasn't spawned by a tropical system.
Those kind of storm events happen all over the country.  Nasty summer thunderstorms, high winds, trees falling on roads, sometimes flash floods (West Virginia has a lot of them).  Massive river flooding in the Midwest and plains states.

Storms don't have to be tropical to be covered by FEMA disaster funding.  Back when I was working in VDOT IT on the maintenance management systems, one of my tasks was to compile storm damage data for highways and bridges that had been damaged in a storm, to send to FEMA for federal reimbursement for emergency repair projects.  Some of the storms were local and not tropical and we usually got most of the costs covered by FEMA.

What are you not understanding? They-did-not-receive-a-federal-disaster-declaration.

FEMA rejects appeal to declare Polk County disaster area (https://wlos.com/news/local/fema-rejects-appeal-to-declare-polk-county-disaster-area)

"'After a thorough review of all the information contained in your initial request and appeal, we reaffirm our original findings that the damage identified in your request resulted from separate and distinct events, none of which were of the severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments,' FEMA Administrator Brock Long said, in part, in a letter to Gov. Roy Cooper."

From the other article you clearly haven't taken the time to read:

"In more than a decade leading up to 2016, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice, Lewis said. In the last three years, that number has ballooned to $225 million a year, he said.

Two major hurricanes – Matthew in 2016 and Florence last year – caused much of the damage. But Lewis said there’s also been an uptick in other kinds of storms, such as the flash flooding in early June that washed out roads across the state, including U.S. 401 in southern Franklin County.

'That itself is just shy of $1 million,' he said of the repairs to U.S. 401, which were completed Friday. 'And we still have 20 roads closed across the state because of that June weather event.'"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 10, 2019, 07:18:04 PM
Storms don't have to be tropical to be covered by FEMA disaster funding.  Back when I was working in VDOT IT on the maintenance management systems, one of my tasks was to compile storm damage data for highways and bridges that had been damaged in a storm, to send to FEMA for federal reimbursement for emergency repair projects.  Some of the storms were local and not tropical and we usually got most of the costs covered by FEMA.
What are you not understanding? They-did-not-receive-a-federal-disaster-declaration.
FEMA rejects appeal to declare Polk County disaster area (https://wlos.com/news/local/fema-rejects-appeal-to-declare-polk-county-disaster-area)
"'After a thorough review of all the information contained in your initial request and appeal, we reaffirm our original findings that the damage identified in your request resulted from separate and distinct events, none of which were of the severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the State and affected local governments,' FEMA Administrator Brock Long said, in part, in a letter to Gov. Roy Cooper."
I never said it was guaranteed.  But severe widespread road damage repair projects often do get FEMA funding.  In that case it may have been localized damage.  I can't judge whether that event should have received it or not.

From the other article you clearly haven't taken the time to read:
"In more than a decade leading up to 2016, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice, Lewis said. In the last three years, that number has ballooned to $225 million a year, he said.
That is a whole mix of weather related items, including tropical storms and (implies) snow removal.

VDOT's 2018-19 winter budget for snow removal was $205 million (https://www.virginiadot.org/news/resources/Statewide/snow18/SNOW-REMOVAL-BUDGET-2018-2019-WINTER-SEASON.pdf).  That is what snow removal costs today in a state of about 8 million population.

I suspect that article has an incomplete accounting of all the items that it listed.

Two major hurricanes – Matthew in 2016 and Florence last year – caused much of the damage. But Lewis said there’s also been an uptick in other kinds of storms, such as the flash flooding in early June that washed out roads across the state, including U.S. 401 in southern Franklin County.
'That itself is just shy of $1 million,' he said of the repairs to U.S. 401, which were completed Friday. 'And we still have 20 roads closed across the state because of that June weather event.'"
That kind of damage happens in many other states, especially southeastern and middle Atlantic states that in addition to localized severe storms also get hit by tropical storms and tropical storm remnants.

Mountainous areas such as the Appalachians are prone to flash flooding from localized storms that have a lot of rainfall.  That can wreak havoc with roads and bridges.

So what sort of FEMA reimbursements did occur, how many millions of dollars?  Those two hurricanes definitely should have had lots of damages that were qualifying.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on August 10, 2019, 08:29:34 PM
In the last few years North Carolina thunderstorms seem have become more violent (climate change, I suppose). There have been many cases of storms dumping multiple inches of rain in an hour, triggering flash floods and washing out roads, especially in places where older bridges are still in place. These are purely local events, so the federal government doesn't provide any assistance through FEMA. A single event of this kind is not a big hit to the budget, but if NCDOT has thirty of them it does make a difference.

Ah, no, before Matthew and Florence, the last major storm was Floyd.  The tornado outbreak in 2011 was followed by the quietest summer in years.  There hasn't been a significant drought since 2007 and we have had record snowfall the past 2 years, where were you in January?  Also NCDOT has a Rainy Day fund for these events.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 11, 2019, 09:29:17 AM
The tornado outbreak in 2011 was followed by the quietest summer in years.
I still remember driving through the aftermath of that a week later, and I still kick myself for not taking a picture of the billboard ad for a strip joint in Dunn that was wrapped around a church along the southbound frontage road.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 13, 2019, 09:24:13 AM
NCDOT has put the brakes on the proposed Cape Fear Crossing project in Wilmington since it did not score well enough in the draft 2020-2029 STIP to receive funding.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 13, 2019, 09:59:21 AM
NCDOT has put the brakes on the proposed Cape Fear Crossing project in Wilmington since it did not score well enough in the draft 2020-2029 STIP to receive funding.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx)

A rather abrupt and sudden shutdown of the entire project.

That project always struck me as far too expensive for the needs and benefits.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 13, 2019, 10:00:50 AM
^^  Note that they keep open the possibility of re-adding it in the future, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 13, 2019, 11:08:46 AM
^^  Note that they keep open the possibility of re-adding it in the future, though.
If the MPO re-submits the project.  The language made it sound like all work has stopped, including selecting a corridor which was imminent.

The N.C. Department of Transportation will not continue planning and design work on the Cape Fear Crossing highway-bridge project at this time.

. . . the NCDOT had planned to select a preferred corridor by the end of the year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 13, 2019, 11:48:09 AM
NCDOT has put the brakes on the proposed Cape Fear Crossing project in Wilmington since it did not score well enough in the draft 2020-2029 STIP to receive funding.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx)
As mentioned in this press release, NCDOT has released the 2020-2029 STIP, though it is referred to at this time as the final draft due to the NCDOT Board not officially approving it until their September meeting. The STIP press release is at:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-13-cape-fear-crossing-update.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on August 13, 2019, 10:43:40 PM
Is I-285 signed yet?  I see that it was not on the 2019 Rand McNally and it took this long to get I-495 replaced with I-87.  Same state and same situation with a new route number, so was wondering if they also dragged their feet on this one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on August 14, 2019, 12:04:26 AM
Is I-285 signed yet?  I see that it was not on the 2019 Rand McNally and it took this long to get I-495 replaced with I-87.  Same state and same situation with a new route number, so was wondering if they also dragged their feet on this one.

On the ground it is, there's plans on the books for the overheads by this fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 14, 2019, 09:00:02 AM
NCDOT is planning to lay off hundreds of workers due to damage repair costs from recent hurricanes and Map Act settlements.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article233969157.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article233969157.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on August 14, 2019, 09:46:34 AM
NCDOT is planning to lay off hundreds of workers due to damage repair costs from recent hurricanes and Map Act settlements.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article233969157.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article233969157.html)
Contract workers and temporary workers.  Apparently no salaried state employees.

This article like the one this newspaper posted a few days ago raises more questions than it answers.

So does this account for how highways like the Greensboro southern loop were build thru well developed areas with surprising ease?  At least it seemed that way at the time, like how did the land seem to be there without needing major acquisition of hundreds of houses and businesses?  Are they going back retroactively and granting settlements on highways that were completed 10 to 15 years ago?

How would this be a problem in rural areas?  Landowners could still use the land for farming and ranching.

Again, the figures for weather costs don't add up.
In more than a decade before Matthew, NCDOT averaged about $65 million a year in weather-related expenses, due to hurricanes, flash floods, rock slides and snow and ice, Lewis said.  In the last three years, that number has grown to more than $225 million a year

As I posted before, the annual budget for snow removal now exceeds $200 million for VDOT, and that is a state with about the same population and total public road mileage as N.C.  That is what it costs nowadays, it's very expensive.

So the claimed NCDOT figures are not remarkable.

Also, why not a word about FEMA reimbursements?  That could account for 50 to 70% or more of the funding for repairing disaster damage, at least that is typical.  Federal funding over and above normal FHWA allocations.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on August 14, 2019, 10:48:09 AM
Shot in the dark here, since NC has had a change in who was running the DOT, going to say it's the DOT Secretary trying to bilk something before getting shoved out in the next election, using the lawsuits and the storms as an excuse. 

Will be interesting to see what kind of BS they are going to give to the General Assembly next year when the DOT asks for budget help, stated in the article, have a feeling an audit is coming and the General Assembly is going demand more oversight if not the ability to review DOT Secretary appointments in the future.  Any attempt to raise the gas tax, moving the set cap, won't be until 2021 at the earliest and extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 14, 2019, 06:43:40 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-14-frog-level-road-closure-greenville.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-14-frog-level-road-closure-greenville.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — Part of a Pitt County road will close for a day this week so N.C. Department of Transportation contractors can install water lines under the road as part of the Southwest Bypass project.

Frog Level Road will be closed near Turnage Lane, between Bell Arthur Road and U.S. 13/264 Alternate, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Thursday, Aug. 15.

People wishing to access Frog Level Road from U.S. 13/264A will be detoured 1.5 miles along Bell Arthur Road to return to Frog Level Road. In the opposite direction, the detour will follow Bell Arthur Road and U.S. 13/264A to access Frog Level Road on the east side of the project site.

Drivers should slow down and be cautious near the work zone and allow for extra travel time because of the detour.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 15, 2019, 11:19:51 AM
Bad news for Greenville commuters...

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 15, 2019, 12:59:58 PM
A section of East North Dickerson Road just north of Kinston will close permanently due to the NC-148 (C.F. Harvey Parkway) extension project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-lenoir-county-permanent-road-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-lenoir-county-permanent-road-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 15, 2019, 06:37:58 PM
Bad news for Greenville commuters...

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html)
Stand by. Legislators are already talking about what might be done to address the cash flow problems at NCDOT. North Carolina loves to build roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 15, 2019, 07:52:31 PM
Bad news for Greenville commuters...

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/08/15/Major-road-widening-projects-on-hold-because-of-NCDOT-budgetary-constraints.html)
Stand by. Legislators are already talking about what might be done to address the cash flow problems at NCDOT. North Carolina loves to build roads.

I figured they would sooner or later.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 15, 2019, 07:54:10 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-pitt-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-pitt-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE - A Pitt County interchange ramp will close beginning next week to be upgraded as part of the Southwest Bypass project.

Beginning at 9 a.m. Aug. 19, drivers traveling west from Greenville where Stantonsburg Road becomes U.S. 264 West will not be able to take the right exit ramp for U.S. 264 East toward Washington.

The ramp is expected to be closed until Aug. 30, weather permitting, to ensure the safety of the public and the contractor.

Until it reopens, traffic will be detoured through three exit loops at the interchange. Drivers will take a right just past the overpass and the two immediate right exit loops for U.S. 264 East.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on August 15, 2019, 07:58:01 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-pitt-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-15-pitt-county-highway-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE - A Pitt County interchange ramp will close beginning next week to be upgraded as part of the Southwest Bypass project.

Beginning at 9 a.m. Aug. 19, drivers traveling west from Greenville where Stantonsburg Road becomes U.S. 264 West will not be able to take the right exit ramp for U.S. 264 East toward Washington.

The ramp is expected to be closed until Aug. 30, weather permitting, to ensure the safety of the public and the contractor.

Until it reopens, traffic will be detoured through three exit loops at the interchange. Drivers will take a right just past the overpass and the two immediate right exit loops for U.S. 264 East.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

It's coming along nicely... But yeah, I hate when people would have to go take 3 exit loops. I would go on B's barbeque rd and to w 5th st (NC 43) to go to washington. I would change that sign maybe to Bethel and Washington once 13 and 11 gets moved on the SW bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 16, 2019, 05:32:43 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-16-i-40-aviation-pkwy-ramp-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-16-i-40-aviation-pkwy-ramp-shift.aspx)

Quote
MORRISVILLE – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors plan to shift traffic from the existing ramps on and off westbound Interstate 40 at Aviation Parkway onto newly constructed ramps on Sunday, Aug. 18 at 7 p.m.

The existing westbound exit ramp from I-40 and the onramp to I-40 West from Aviation Parkway will be closed. The shift in ramp alignments will update the interchange to new design standards and accommodate the construction of a new loop for I-40 westbound traffic exiting to travel south on Aviation Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on August 16, 2019, 06:51:04 PM

Good explanation for the construction but, that didn't add a lane, plus I-26 is not a major commerce route like I-95.

NCDOT's AADT data show 46,000 vehicles on that section of I-26, 17% being trucks. At the Roanoke River on I-95 it's 49,000 and 21% trucks. Comparing volumes, the busiest stretch of I-26 sees 22,000 more vehicles per day than the busiest section of I-95. I-26 isn't a rural mountain drive.

Links please, plus, is that busiest stretch of 26 with or at the 40 junction?

NCDOT 2017 Freeway AADT Volumes (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/NCDOT2017InterstateFreewayReport.pdf)
Web Map (https://arcg.is/1ynzbu)

South of I-40
Exit 31 to Exit 33: 84,000
Exit 33 to Exit 37: 85,000
Exit 37 to Exit 40: 82,000

Interesting. Looks like I-40 around RTP is now even busier than I-77 between the SC Line and Uptown Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 17, 2019, 10:14:49 PM
I wonder if NCDot sees a recession on the horizon  and thinks they can get lower bids on some projects if they wait a year or so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 18, 2019, 08:20:38 AM
My question is Why is the NCDOT having shortfalls when A) The Legislature raised DMV Fees a few years ago and more and more people are moving to NC, which equals more NCDOT Funding and B) What about the Build NC bond money? 

I find it hard to believe that even with the recent Hurricanes and Map Act Litigation that the NCDOT would be having cashflow problems.

If I were Governor I would immediately call for an audit of the NCDOT!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 18, 2019, 09:22:12 AM
Regarding A, at the same time the Legislature raised DMV fees, the gas tax also dropped, so it wasn't as much of a revenue gain as you may expect.  The Map Act litigation thus far has cost about two-years worth of what those higher DMV fees were expected to collect.  Their average costs for storm recovery over the past three years have also completely eaten up whatever increase the higher DMV fees would have provided.

Regarding B, as of the beginning of this summer, bonds had not been issued yet.  And keep in mind that, per the state law that authorized the Build NC bonds, NCDOT's existing revenues are to be used to pay the bonds back.

So yes, it's quite plausible that they're having cashflow problems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on August 18, 2019, 11:51:45 AM
My question is Why is the NCDOT having shortfalls when A) The Legislature raised DMV Fees a few years ago and more and more people are moving to NC, which equals more NCDOT Funding and B) What about the Build NC bond money? 

I find it hard to believe that even with the recent Hurricanes and Map Act Litigation that the NCDOT would be having cashflow problems.

If I were Governor I would immediately call for an audit of the NCDOT!

LOL!!!  Cooper to ask for an audit of Dept ran by his party buddy.  LOL!!!  Guess it escaped everybody that they are moving the HQ from Raleigh, the capital, to Rocky Mount, Cooper's home base.

Seriously, only the Council of State, headed by Cooper, approved this, in opposition to a lot of his "friends" in Raleigh.  Yes, the current building is a dilapidated joke but, there are plenty of properties available to either lease or build, Knightdale was just voted the cheapest place to live in NC, that's eastern Wake county, to have a new DOT HQ at or near the seat of government for the state.  Rocky Mount is 50 miles from the Capital. 

The General Assembly can call for an audit, most likely will after this STIP comes out and projects are delayed or shelved.  Especially if it'll hurt Cooper's chances of being reelected.  Get ready, NC is about to have a road building roller coaster.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 18, 2019, 03:26:43 PM
My question is Why is the NCDOT having shortfalls when A) The Legislature raised DMV Fees a few years ago and more and more people are moving to NC, which equals more NCDOT Funding and B) What about the Build NC bond money? 

I find it hard to believe that even with the recent Hurricanes and Map Act Litigation that the NCDOT would be having cashflow problems.

If I were Governor I would immediately call for an audit of the NCDOT!

LOL!!!  Cooper to ask for an audit of Dept ran by his party buddy.  LOL!!!  Guess it escaped everybody that they are moving the HQ from Raleigh, the capital, to Rocky Mount, Cooper's home base.

Seriously, only the Council of State, headed by Cooper, approved this, in opposition to a lot of his "friends" in Raleigh.  Yes, the current building is a dilapidated joke but, there are plenty of properties available to either lease or build, Knightdale was just voted the cheapest place to live in NC, that's eastern Wake county, to have a new DOT HQ at or near the seat of government for the state.  Rocky Mount is 50 miles from the Capital.

Only the DMV HQ is moving to Rocky Mount, not the entire NCDOT HQ itself.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on August 18, 2019, 05:19:07 PM
My question is Why is the NCDOT having shortfalls when A) The Legislature raised DMV Fees a few years ago and more and more people are moving to NC, which equals more NCDOT Funding and B) What about the Build NC bond money? 

I find it hard to believe that even with the recent Hurricanes and Map Act Litigation that the NCDOT would be having cashflow problems.

If I were Governor I would immediately call for an audit of the NCDOT!

LOL!!!  Cooper to ask for an audit of Dept ran by his party buddy.  LOL!!!  Guess it escaped everybody that they are moving the HQ from Raleigh, the capital, to Rocky Mount, Cooper's home base.

Seriously, only the Council of State, headed by Cooper, approved this, in opposition to a lot of his "friends" in Raleigh.  Yes, the current building is a dilapidated joke but, there are plenty of properties available to either lease or build, Knightdale was just voted the cheapest place to live in NC, that's eastern Wake county, to have a new DOT HQ at or near the seat of government for the state.  Rocky Mount is 50 miles from the Capital.

Only the DMV HQ is moving to Rocky Mount, not the entire NCDOT HQ itself.

Still a big part of NCDOT and an unnecessary move out of the Capital.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 20, 2019, 05:51:38 PM
I heard a story today about how our firm and another firm were given contracts by different staff at NCDOT to do the same work. They didn't realize it until they had a kick-off call and both firms were on the same call discussing the same scope of work. They had a follow-up call to divide up the work.

No wonder there's no money.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 23, 2019, 04:05:48 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — Contracting crews finished improvements to a Pitt County interchange ramp early and will begin improvements to an adjacent ramp next week.

Between 9 a.m. Aug. 26 and 5 p.m. Sept. 9, drivers headed west on U.S. 264 will not be able to take exit 73A on the west side of Greenville to head toward Wilson.

Until it reopens, traffic will be detoured through three exit loops at the interchange. Drivers will take a right just past the bridge and the two immediate right exit loops to stay on U.S. 264 West.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway. It will begin just south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrap around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and end at the U.S. 264 Bypass west of Greenville. The new highway is expected to open in 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on August 23, 2019, 04:12:35 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — Contracting crews finished improvements to a Pitt County interchange ramp early and will begin improvements to an adjacent ramp next week.

Between 9 a.m. Aug. 26 and 5 p.m. Sept. 9, drivers headed west on U.S. 264 will not be able to take exit 73A on the west side of Greenville to head toward Wilson.

Until it reopens, traffic will be detoured through three exit loops at the interchange. Drivers will take a right just past the bridge and the two immediate right exit loops to stay on U.S. 264 West.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway. It will begin just south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrap around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and end at the U.S. 264 Bypass west of Greenville. The new highway is expected to open in 2020.
What?! 2020???? They said November 2019. They pushed it back again?!?!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PiedmontHwys on August 23, 2019, 05:06:02 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-23-pitt-county-ramp-opens-early-another-closes.aspx)

Quote
GREENVILLE — Contracting crews finished improvements to a Pitt County interchange ramp early and will begin improvements to an adjacent ramp next week.

Between 9 a.m. Aug. 26 and 5 p.m. Sept. 9, drivers headed west on U.S. 264 will not be able to take exit 73A on the west side of Greenville to head toward Wilson.

Until it reopens, traffic will be detoured through three exit loops at the interchange. Drivers will take a right just past the bridge and the two immediate right exit loops to stay on U.S. 264 West.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and use caution when approaching the work zone.

This construction is part of the Southwest Bypass, which will be a four-lane, 12.6-mile freeway. It will begin just south of Ayden on N.C. 11, wrap around the west side of Ayden and Winterville and end at the U.S. 264 Bypass west of Greenville. The new highway is expected to open in 2020.
What?! 2020???? They said November 2019. They pushed it back again?!?!

North Carolina, always good at pushing projects back whatever the circumstance!  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 23, 2019, 06:15:18 PM
NCDOT has finally posted online the 2019-2020 State Transportation Map (the printed version started to appear at welcome centers last week). My review of the map is that it is better than the 2017-2018 version where a lot of it was already out of date when published. Though this one gets a lot more right, it's still a mixed bag. For example, they still mark US 17 along the Wilmington Bypass, though the full I-140 route to US 17 is shown on both the state map and inset. Those hoping that the US 70 Goldsboro Bypass would be marked as I-42 will be disappointed. Though they show the Greensboro Loop correctly, including the part under construction, they still sign the eastern section as I-840, not I-785. Though they show, both on the state map and the Triad inset, the entire Winston-Salem Northern Beltway under construction (marked on the inset as Future I-74), they still include US 311 along with I-74 east of Winston-Salem. They have dropped Business 40 but have not included the US 421 exit numbers that will be changed next year (Bus. 85 is still shown). I-285 is depicted along US 52. They do not show the Greenville Southwest Loop under construction. For the state map and Triangle inset they do show I-87 along the Knightdale Bypass, but not along I-440 (at least, unlike Rand McNally, they do not have I-440 along the I-40 portion of the Beltline). They do not indicate any Future NC 540 construction. The entire Fayetteville Loop is depicted as NC 295 and the future section is shown under construction. They do not show the new section of I-73 along US 220 north to NC 68, nor the extended part of I-73/I-74 north of Rockingham, both completed last year (nor the rest of the Rockingham Bypass as under construction). They still have I-74 marked on the Rockingham and Laurinburg bypasses. They do show US 74 as a freeway 6 miles east of NC 41 in Lumberton and west of Whiteville to Boardman.

See what you like/dislike. The front and back pdf files are at:
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx)

The inset files at last check have not been updated from 2017-2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 23, 2019, 08:41:20 PM
The Wilson inset STILL shows US-117 as being overlapped with US-264, even though US-117 was put back on it’s old alignment between Wilson and Goldsboro in 2009 after I-795 took over the freeway. :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 23, 2019, 09:52:45 PM
NC 906 is now shown
NC 37 extension to US 64 is still not on herehttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/8.gif
Although correct on the inset, I-785/840 not shown open to US 29 on the northeast side of Greensboro
SC 460 north of Fort Mill is now shown but also shown erroneously west of SC 160
US 158 Bus in Warrenton still shown as US 158 ALT
NC 24 Bypasses of Autryville and Roseboro now shown, with old routes shown as unlabeled primary routes (not a lot of space to put the 24 Bus labels)
The NC 24-27 Troy bypass is shown for the first time, albeit under construction (is now open)
The US 64 Asheboro Bypass is not shown at all
The US 158 reroute at Reidsville is not shown
US 321 still shown as 2-lane south of Blowing Rock
NC 281 still shown with significant unpaved sections...all of it has paved for a while now
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 25, 2019, 05:58:49 PM
NC 906 is now shown
NC 37 extension to US 64 is still not on herehttps://www.aaroads.com/forum/Smileys/default/8.gif
Although correct on the inset, I-785/840 not shown open to US 29 on the northeast side of Greensboro
SC 460 north of Fort Mill is now shown but also shown erroneously west of SC 160
US 158 Bus in Warrenton still shown as US 158 ALT
NC 24 Bypasses of Autryville and Roseboro now shown, with old routes shown as unlabeled primary routes (not a lot of space to put the 24 Bus labels)
The NC 24-27 Troy bypass is shown for the first time, albeit under construction (is now open)
The US 64 Asheboro Bypass is not shown at all
The US 158 reroute at Reidsville is not shown
US 321 still shown as 2-lane south of Blowing Rock
NC 281 still shown with significant unpaved sections...all of it has paved for a while now
So, someone's going to list all the errors and send them to NCDOT?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 26, 2019, 09:58:11 AM
More Errors:

(Under Construction) SW Greenville Bypass is not shown

(Under Construction) CF Harvey Parkway Extension (Kinston) is not shown

US 17 only the Maysville Bypass is shown under construction (the whole corridor from New Bern to Belgrade should be shown as under construction)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 26, 2019, 12:28:40 PM
The Wilson inset STILL shows US-117 as being overlapped with US-264, even though US-117 was put back on it’s old alignment between Wilson and Goldsboro in 2009 after I-795 took over the freeway. :banghead:
That may have been the 2017-2018 map version. However, they have now updated the inset maps to the 2019-2020 map version and it still shows US 117 with US 264.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 26, 2019, 02:54:50 PM
The Wilson inset STILL shows US-117 as being overlapped with US-264, even though US-117 was put back on it’s old alignment between Wilson and Goldsboro in 2009 after I-795 took over the freeway. :banghead:
That may have been the 2017-2018 map version. However, they have now updated the inset maps to the 2019-2020 map version and it still shows US 117 with US 264.  :-/

I’m shocked. :meh:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 27, 2019, 02:57:36 PM
Update on the Business 40 project in Winston-Salem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-27-lanes-business-40-reopen-us-52-main-street.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-27-lanes-business-40-reopen-us-52-main-street.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 27, 2019, 07:38:48 PM
Is anybody familiar with that rusty old motel sign along northbound US 301 just north of the overlap with NC 39 barely out of Selma?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5509953,-78.272068,3a,75y,84.09h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si3VlOkBrwdC554njitVZOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I tried to get a picture of the thing and it turned out terrible.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 27, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
Is anybody familiar with that rusty old motel sign along northbound US 301 just north of the overlap with NC 39 barely out of Selma?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5509953,-78.272068,3a,75y,84.09h,88.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1si3VlOkBrwdC554njitVZOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

I tried to get a picture of the thing and it turned out terrible.



Here is a decent post card photo of it when it had that sign - https://www.ebay.com/itm/362690490087

There was apparently at least a prior version of the sign - https://picclick.com/SELMA-North-Carolina-NC-Roadside-362527481304.html#&gid=1&pid=1
This older sign was repurposed and was still standing until the early 2010s - https://deanjeffrey.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/carolyn-court-motel-selma-nc/

Historic aerials oldest year there is 1993 and it appears the motel was abandoned already.  The link above says there are a few ruins that have become part of the woods.

The online Selma city directories of 1957 and 1963 do not seem to list it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 30, 2019, 09:59:05 AM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to I-40 between the Sampson/Duplin county line and the US-117 interchange in Pender County. Completion expected by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PiedmontHwys on August 30, 2019, 01:55:57 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to I-40 between the Sampson/Duplin county line and the US-117 interchange in Pender County. Completion expected by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx)

The question is: will they replace the I-40 roadway pavement with concrete, or just put in new asphalt? Just curious.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on August 30, 2019, 04:01:10 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to I-40 between the Sampson/Duplin county line and the US-117 interchange in Pender County. Completion expected by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx)

The question is: will they replace the I-40 roadway pavement with concrete, or just put in new asphalt? Just curious.
Concrete is better and more fun to drive on. Asphalt is also good, but it wears off quicker because it's cheaper.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 30, 2019, 04:02:11 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to I-40 between the Sampson/Duplin county line and the US-117 interchange in Pender County. Completion expected by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx)

The question is: will they replace the I-40 roadway pavement with concrete, or just put in new asphalt? Just curious.
Most likely just a typical repaving using asphalt, similar to other rehabilitation projects that have occurred on I-40 and other interstates & freeways around the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 30, 2019, 04:04:13 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to make improvements to I-40 between the Sampson/Duplin county line and the US-117 interchange in Pender County. Completion expected by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-duplin-pender-interstate-contract-awarded.aspx)

The question is: will they replace the I-40 roadway pavement with concrete, or just put in new asphalt? Just curious.
Concrete is better and more fun to drive on. Asphalt is also good, but it wears off quicker because it's cheaper.
Judging by the price tag, it’s most likely asphalt.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 30, 2019, 11:18:28 PM
I have noticed that my car handles a lot better driving on concrete pavement in the rain and I can go a lot faster than when I drive on Asphalt in the rain.  I have come to this conclusion as a daily commuter who drives the Greensboro Urban Loop from PTI Airport to Wendover Ave.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 01, 2019, 09:17:02 AM
Southport-Fort Fisher ferry to reopen October 1.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-southport-fort-fisher-repairs.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-30-southport-fort-fisher-repairs.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 03, 2019, 08:08:50 AM
The Greenville Southwest Bypass is currently planned to open in November.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 03, 2019, 02:21:40 PM
Will the new SR-11 freeway have exit numbers? If not, I think they should be added at some point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 03, 2019, 05:47:57 PM
The Greenville Southwest Bypass is currently planned to open in November.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/03/Bypass-on-track-for-November-opening.html)
A few other interesting things mentioned in the article...

- Speed limit will be posted at 70 mph.
- The freeway will have 20,000 AADT by 2020, and 34,000 AADT by 2040.
- A significant amount of traffic would be taken off of NC-11 and routed onto the bypass.
- Work begins in September 2020 to upgrade US-264 to interstate standards between Wilson and Greenville for the Interstate 587 designation.

Quote
The interstate-quality highway will feature a speed limit of 70 mph.
Quote
Thousands of vehicles a day are expected to utilize the bypass, relieving N.C. 11 of much of its congestion. According to 2014 estimates, up to 20,000 vehicles per day will use the new road. That number is expected to increase to 34,000 vehicles per day by 2040.

"So, yes, we do expect that traffic to be pulled off of N.C. 11-Memorial Drive, and that would reduce the amount of traffic going through Greenville itself," Lentine said.
Quote
Next year, DOT also is scheduled to begin work to bring U.S. 264 from Pitt to Wilson counties up to interstate standards as part of a project to establish the new I-587. That work is to begin in September 2020.

Interstate 587 will overlay the U.S. 264 freeway to its merger with U.S. 64 (Future I-87) at Zebulon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 04, 2019, 05:33:56 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-04-i-95-work-needed-ahead-dorian.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-04-i-95-work-needed-ahead-dorian.aspx)

Quote
KENLY — In preparation for Hurricane Dorian, an N.C. Department of Transportation contractor needs to do additional work tonight on a mile-long stretch of I-95 in Johnston County.

“We believe it’s imperative in order to ensure the safety of the traveling public to do this work now ahead of any potential heavy rains that Dorian may bring,”  NCDOT’s Division 4 Engineer Ronnie Keeter said.

The contractor plans to close one southbound lane between mile markers 106 and 107 from 8 tonight until about 2 a.m. Thursday.

Then, the contractor will reopen both southbound lanes and close one northbound lane in the same vicinity from 2 a.m. until 6 a.m., Thursday, when traffic on the interstate is expected to be at its lowest.

Ongoing median construction in this stretch of highway needs to be filled in before any potential flooding.

Keeter said transportation officials will be monitoring the work and will make any adjustments to the work or traffic, if any issue arises.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 04, 2019, 07:02:10 PM
A section of Business 40 in Winston-Salem will be closed for the weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-04-business-40-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-04-business-40-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 05, 2019, 04:41:39 PM
The NC Board of Transportation has approved the 2020-2029 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on September 05, 2019, 05:12:41 PM
The NC Board of Transportation has approved the 2020-2029 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-09-stip-plan-2020.aspx)

Interesting to see NC-268 getting bumped up to four lanes in Wilkes County....that's a very rural section of the county. Maybe a future I-x77 spur?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 05, 2019, 05:23:53 PM
In Greenville, Dollar General is relocating to the former Rite Aid building. Does that mean that the whole harris teeter shopping center is going to be demolished? I would love for that to happen and see what that shopping center can be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 05, 2019, 07:26:09 PM
In Greenville, Dollar General is relocating to the former Rite Aid building. Does that mean that the whole harris teeter shopping center is going to be demolished? I would love for that to happen and see what that shopping center can be.
Who cares?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 05, 2019, 07:46:30 PM
In Greenville, Dollar General is relocating to the former Rite Aid building. Does that mean that the whole harris teeter shopping center is going to be demolished? I would love for that to happen and see what that shopping center can be.
Who cares?
Is that better to go on like City-Data or something?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 05, 2019, 08:35:59 PM
In Greenville, Dollar General is relocating to the former Rite Aid building. Does that mean that the whole harris teeter shopping center is going to be demolished? I would love for that to happen and see what that shopping center can be.
Who cares?
Is that better to go on like City-Data or something?
You can visit the old folks' home and talk with them about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 06, 2019, 12:03:10 PM

Flyover of the entire Asheboro Bypass as of 8/22/19.

The project is still well under construction, though is expected to be completed by Spring 2020.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 06, 2019, 12:10:51 PM
The project is still well under construction, though is expected to be completed by Spring 2020.
So the southwest bypass and that was delayed to 2020. jesus that sucks man
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 06, 2019, 12:13:42 PM
The project is still well under construction, though is expected to be completed by Spring 2020.
So the southwest bypass and that was delayed to 2020. jesus that sucks man
The Asheboro Bypass has always been projected to be completed in 2020...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 10, 2019, 11:46:37 AM
NCDOT press release about upcoming I-95 widening north of Fayetteville:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-10-major-overhaul-awaits-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-10-major-overhaul-awaits-i-95.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 10, 2019, 01:20:16 PM
NCDOT press release about upcoming I-95 widening north of Fayetteville:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-10-major-overhaul-awaits-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-10-major-overhaul-awaits-i-95.aspx)

Looks like they're gonna build a ramp from I-95 North to I-295 South. I guess that would easily explain why FHWA went ahead and made I-295 official.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2019, 12:25:24 AM
https://www.nc-eminent-domain.com/latest-projects/4012-2/
They are basically doing almost what I thought they should do.  I always thought of making Exits 72 and 73 one long diamond, but they are keeping the current diamond at Exit 73 but making the NB Pope Road on ramp and SB I-95 off ramp to Pope Road through the US 421 diamond interchange.

Interesting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 11, 2019, 07:11:05 AM
How about make all of I-95 8 lanes since it's the busiest interstate on the east stretch of America. Or south of 264 make it all 8 and north of it all 6. But I'm sure that won't all be done until like 2030 or something.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on September 11, 2019, 11:34:08 AM
Money is the issue.  Yes I-95 should be widened all the way from Georgia to Virginia but it is that factor.   This project is only being done due to grants, so the I-95 Business to I-40 widening is covered in that aspect as well as upgrades to US 70 for Future I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 11, 2019, 02:50:14 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx)

Quote
​DEEP GAP — A major interchange in the High Country is opening today with traffic taking a new route at the intersection of U.S. 221 and U.S. 421 near the Watauga and Ashe county line.

N.C. Department of Transportation officials are opening the interchange, which is part of a $46 million project to build the interchange, improve and widen U.S. 221 from Deep Gap to just north of the South Fork New River.

“Today is a big day because the interchange is a very important part of accomplishing the safety component of the purpose and need of the project – to improve safety and mobility,”  Division 11 Construction Engineer Trent Beaver said. “The interchange eliminates a traffic signal and separates traffic in an area that is very prone to foggy conditions.”

Traffic heading from Boone to West Jefferson will exit U.S. 421 and drive on a bridge over U.S 421 to join U.S. 221. Traffic driving from Wilkesboro to West Jefferson will take a new off-ramp from U.S. 421 to U.S. 221.

Drivers heading from West Jefferson to Wilkesboro will use separate lanes of the new bridge to join U.S. 421 South. The only remaining movement – from West Jefferson to Boone – will remain in its existing pattern until that ramp is complete later this year.

“This interchange has been a priority from the conception of the project,”  Beaver said. “We are pleased to see it open today.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 04:28:38 PM
How about make all of I-95 8 lanes since it's the busiest interstate on the east stretch of America. Or south of 264 make it all 8 and north of it all 6. But I'm sure that won't all be done until like 2030 or something.
The ultimate goal is 8-lanes between I-40 and I-74, and 6-lanes everywhere else, at least in North Carolina.

This widening project coming up on I-95 would be the first time any part of I-95 in North Carolina has been expanded. This is due to the fact that NCDOT in the past has put major focus on the I-85 corridor, which is now at least 6-lanes, and 8-lanes in a lot of areas, between Durham and west of Charlotte. In addition, the proposed 6-lane widening of I-40 between Chapel Hill and I-85, along with the under construction 8-lane widening between I-87 and US-70 Bypass would create roughly 210 miles of 6 to 8 lane interstate highway between south of Raleigh and west of Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on September 11, 2019, 04:53:38 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx)

Quote
​DEEP GAP — A major interchange in the High Country is opening today with traffic taking a new route at the intersection of U.S. 221 and U.S. 421 near the Watauga and Ashe county line.

N.C. Department of Transportation officials are opening the interchange, which is part of a $46 million project to build the interchange, improve and widen U.S. 221 from Deep Gap to just north of the South Fork New River.

“Today is a big day because the interchange is a very important part of accomplishing the safety component of the purpose and need of the project – to improve safety and mobility,”  Division 11 Construction Engineer Trent Beaver said. “The interchange eliminates a traffic signal and separates traffic in an area that is very prone to foggy conditions.”

Traffic heading from Boone to West Jefferson will exit U.S. 421 and drive on a bridge over U.S 421 to join U.S. 221. Traffic driving from Wilkesboro to West Jefferson will take a new off-ramp from U.S. 421 to U.S. 221.

Drivers heading from West Jefferson to Wilkesboro will use separate lanes of the new bridge to join U.S. 421 South. The only remaining movement – from West Jefferson to Boone – will remain in its existing pattern until that ramp is complete later this year.

“This interchange has been a priority from the conception of the project,”  Beaver said. “We are pleased to see it open today.”

Glad to see this open....Didnt think it'd ever get done. We had a running joke about it here in Ashe
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2019, 05:39:11 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-11-deep-gap-interchange.aspx)

Quote
​DEEP GAP — A major interchange in the High Country is opening today with traffic taking a new route at the intersection of U.S. 221 and U.S. 421 near the Watauga and Ashe county line.

N.C. Department of Transportation officials are opening the interchange, which is part of a $46 million project to build the interchange, improve and widen U.S. 221 from Deep Gap to just north of the South Fork New River.

“Today is a big day because the interchange is a very important part of accomplishing the safety component of the purpose and need of the project – to improve safety and mobility,”  Division 11 Construction Engineer Trent Beaver said. “The interchange eliminates a traffic signal and separates traffic in an area that is very prone to foggy conditions.”

Traffic heading from Boone to West Jefferson will exit U.S. 421 and drive on a bridge over U.S 421 to join U.S. 221. Traffic driving from Wilkesboro to West Jefferson will take a new off-ramp from U.S. 421 to U.S. 221.

Drivers heading from West Jefferson to Wilkesboro will use separate lanes of the new bridge to join U.S. 421 South. The only remaining movement – from West Jefferson to Boone – will remain in its existing pattern until that ramp is complete later this year.

“This interchange has been a priority from the conception of the project,”  Beaver said. “We are pleased to see it open today.”
Don't know how the interchange was actually configured, but this was the plan at least a few years back. Assume it's relatively similar or the same though.

(https://i.ibb.co/YW6rh5z/US421-US221.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 11, 2019, 06:51:34 PM
Money is the issue.  Yes I-95 should be widened all the way from Georgia to Virginia but it is that factor.   This project is only being done due to grants, so the I-95 Business to I-40 widening is covered in that aspect as well as upgrades to US 70 for Future I-42.
The new contract is $404 million for 15 miles: a bit under $27 million/mile. Projecting that over the entire length of I-95 in NC is a bit over $5 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 13, 2019, 08:41:52 AM
A little heads-up for I-95 travelers (or locals) that might stop at a hotel or other business on US-264 Alternate in Wilson.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 13, 2019, 11:19:57 AM
Never seen that interchange design, sprjus4. I'm sure those could do well at clogged T intersections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 13, 2019, 02:40:08 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

Quote
Dorian Recovery

In the wake of Hurricane Dorian, the N.C. Department of Transportation is putting its efforts into making repairs to reopen state roads quickly.

About a dozen roads are still closed, including N.C. 12 in Ocracoke where more than 1,000 feet of major dunes and pavement will need to be replaced.

The damage from Dorian is estimated to be about $45 million and repairs are expected to be complete by the end of the year.

U.S. 421 Announcement

Florence caused the state’s largest washout on U.S. 421 at the New Hanover / Pender county line.

The culvert at Fishing Creek could not withstand the floodwaters. It was destroyed, along with several hundred feet of the highway.

Since then, crews constructed a temporary bridge that opened to traffic in October of last year.

Instead of just replacing the culvert, NCDOT engineers chose to design for better resiliency: two bridges, both two lanes at 562 feet long. This will allow more water to flow through.

The first bridge is nearly complete, and the other is expected to open next year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 15, 2019, 09:29:32 AM
Even though the road has been open since April, NCDOT will hold a formal ribbon-cutting ceremony tomorrow for the 10th Street Connector in Greenville.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 15, 2019, 09:37:46 AM
Even though the road has been open since April, NCDOT will hold a formal ribbon-cutting ceremony tomorrow for the 10th Street Connector in Greenville.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html)
The connector piece opened in April 2019, but the entire project also widened and improved Farmville Blvd between Memorial Dr and 14th Ave into a four-lane divided roadway which that piece was still under construction in April. That piece was likely completed in the past few weeks and that's why the ribbon-cutting ceremony is now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 15, 2019, 09:42:27 AM
A little heads-up for I-95 travelers (or locals) that might stop at a hotel or other business on US-264 Alternate in Wilson.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445)
I'm getting nothing there but a survey blocking the article.


P.S.; I was at the Jameson Inn there in 2013.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 15, 2019, 01:19:27 PM
A little heads-up for I-95 travelers (or locals) that might stop at a hotel or other business on US-264 Alternate in Wilson.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/raleigh-road-parkway-traffic-access-is-changing,189445)
I'm getting nothing there but a survey blocking the article.


P.S.; I was at the Jameson Inn there in 2013.

I stayed at the Sleep Inn twice (2016 and 2017) when I was visiting friends in the area. I grew up in Fremont, a few miles south of Wilson. I'm supposed to head back down there next month, but at least this time I'm staying at a friend's house in Goldsboro, so that's money saved. :awesomeface:

Here's the article, BTW:

Quote
Motorists using Raleigh Road Parkway, or U.S. 264 Alternate, west of the Interstate 95 interchange between Wilson and Sims will soon see changes that could affect mobility in the area.

The N.C. Department of Transportation will implement a highway safety improvement project at Hayes Road, widening the Lamm Road intersection to add dedicated turning lanes on both sides and adding a “bulb-out”  near Lamm Road for trucks and large vehicles to make U-turns.

According to Andy Musselman, NCDOT Division 4 assistant resident engineer, the work began in June when crews began working on drainage ahead of the paving project.

“It’s going to involve modifying some of the access points along Raleigh Road,”  Musselman said.

The N.C. Division of Highways has been evaluating the Hayes Place intersection for the past couple of years trying to screen it.

“It looks like it met criteria due to the number of frontal crashes in that area,”  Musselman said. “At Hayes Place, they are going to be turning that into a directional crossover, which means that you will be able to make left turns from 264 Alternate, but you won’t be able to cross over, like from one side to the other on Hayes Place or to make lefts coming out of Hayes Place.

Motorists have noticed that orange safety barrels currently block traffic from going directly across 264 Alternate at Hayes Place.

“That will be sealed off so you won’t be able to go straight across anymore,”  Musselman said.

There are several hotels and restaurants on either side of Hayes Place, including on the north side including Cracker Barrel, McDonald’s, Hampton Inn and Suites, Red Roof Inn and Suites Wilson, Microtel Inn and Suites by Wyndham Wilson. On the south side are several businesses including Burger King, Country Inn and Suites, Fairfield Inn and Suites by Marriott Wilson and Comfort Suites Wilson I-95.

Officials say modifying this access point could reduce the number of frontal collisions.

CHANGES AT LAMM ROAD

The current project calls for widening at the intersection at Lamm Road to install dedicated turn lanes on both sides to get onto U.S. 264 Alternate, going east or west.

Musselman said there is drainage work underway currently and other work at Lamm Road that is in coordination with the building of a new Chick-fil-A at the intersection’s northwest corner.

“Another thing they are doing with this is upgrading some drainage and cleaning out some of the ditches that have been filling up over the years,”  Musselman said.

BULB-OUT

Several hundred feet west on U.S. 264 Alternate is another crossover area, and that will be turned into a dedicated U-turn lane for larger vehicles and trucks to make a U-turn from 264 Alternate West to 264 Alternate East.

The “bulb-out”  is mostly for trucks.

It’s just going to be on one side of the road, so drivers would no longer be able to make a left turn or a U-turn coming from U.S. 264 East.

“It’s an extra bit of asphalt there to allow trucks with the larger turning radius to be able to make the U-turn without having to go off onto the shoulder,”  Musselman said. “Since there is not a very wide median there, they have to add the extra asphalt on the outside.”

After the project is finished this fall, folks coming out of Hayes Place will have to make a U-turn at Lamm Road. Motorists on the other side will have to make a U-turn at the I-95 South ramp.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on September 15, 2019, 07:46:28 PM
According to Google Maps, that Jameson is where the Red Roof Inn & Suites is now.

The night I'm talking about when I stayed there, I wanted to have dinner. But the Cracker Barrel was too filling, and I didn't want convenience store food or your standard fast food, so after I walked across US 264 Alternate, I stopped in a strip mall in front of the Country Inn Suites by Raddison which had a pizzeria run by a couple of Iranian-Americans. I had my pizza and during a conversation with them I mentioned that I was staying at the motel. They told me I should've ordered room service from them, but I didn't know about them until I arrived there.

After I got done, I checked back in my room, and sure enough, one of those Iranian-American pizza boys was delivering to another room at that motel. The guy remembered me as he was talking to the female clerk there and she said I should've ordered room service. He told her he said the same thing, but I reiterated that I didn't know about the place. Neither of them believed me, but I let it go, because as far as I was concerned, it was really no skin off my ass.

Anyway, this project looks only slightly safer than what they've got now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on September 15, 2019, 08:58:23 PM
We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Verlanka on September 16, 2019, 05:08:16 AM
We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
You are certainly putting words his mouth.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 16, 2019, 07:34:20 AM
We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
You are certainly putting words his mouth.
Just a way to game the system and get a higher posting count. I wouldn’t be surprised if half of his posts are irrelevant to that topic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: qguy on September 17, 2019, 06:09:27 AM
We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere - like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Give me five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Now where were we? Oh yeah: the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
You are certainly putting words his mouth.
Just a way to game the system and get a higher posting count. I wouldn’t be surprised if half of his posts are irrelevant to that topic.

Often enough, perhaps, but in this case he was making a wry comment on D's story.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 17, 2019, 08:35:30 AM
Even though the road has been open since April, NCDOT will hold a formal ribbon-cutting ceremony tomorrow for the 10th Street Connector in Greenville.

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/14/Monday-event-will-name-connector-for-Jenkins-Best.html)

Follow-up article covering the ceremony:

http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/17/Ceremony-honors-drive-of-Best-Jenkins.html (http://www.reflector.com/News/2019/09/17/Ceremony-honors-drive-of-Best-Jenkins.html)

Notable tidbit:

Quote
The road and bridge names are honorary, and won’t be used in street addressing.

The Greenville Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing at today’s 6 p.m. meeting on a proposal to rename the section of highway between Memorial Boulevard and Dickinson Avenue, currently called Farmville Boulevard, to West 10th Street.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 17, 2019, 02:47:39 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-17-section-closed-jones-county-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-17-section-closed-jones-county-bypass.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE — A section of a Jones County bypass will be closed for about 12 hours this week so contract crews can place the final layer of asphalt on the road.

Between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, U.S. 17 North Bypass from the intersection of U.S. 17, north of 10 Mile Fork Road, to U.S. 70 will be closed.

Northbound motorists wanting to return to U.S. 70 West, will continue straight at the stoplight at U.S. 17 Business and U.S. 17 Bypass for nearly 7 miles. Drivers will go under the U.S. 70 overpass and turn left at the light for U.S. 70 West.

Southbound motorists on U.S. 17 Business will take a left at the stoplight of U.S. 17 Business and U.S. 17 Bypass and make a U-turn to head back toward New Bern.

On Wednesday, drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commutes and slow down when they approach the work zone.

The overall project is more than 16 miles long, starting south of Belgrade and tying into the existing U.S. 17 Bypass around New Bern. This bypass will be a quicker route between Jacksonville and New Bern. Construction on this project began in October 2015 and is expected to be complete in November.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 18, 2019, 09:47:15 AM
The new (albeit short) connector road between NC-55 and Talton Avenue in Mount Olive is open and has been named Pickle Road.

http://www.mountolivetribune.com/stories/towns-newest-road-is-a-real-pickle,62343? (http://www.mountolivetribune.com/stories/towns-newest-road-is-a-real-pickle,62343?)

Also in Mount Olive, the town Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing on October 7 to discuss the NC-55/Bert Martin Road intersection.

http://www.mountolivetribune.com/stories/public-hearing-set-for-road-safety-concerns,62349? (http://www.mountolivetribune.com/stories/public-hearing-set-for-road-safety-concerns,62349?)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 18, 2019, 06:29:11 PM
Upcoming traffic shift beginning tomorrow on US-421 at the New Hanover/Pender county line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-18-traffic-shift-highway-pender-new-hanover.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-18-traffic-shift-highway-pender-new-hanover.aspx)

And in unrelated news, NCDOT State Board of Transportation chairman Mike Fox was interviewed by the North State Journal last week regarding NCDOT's funding issues.

https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/09/landowner-suits-natural-disasters-put-dot-in-fiscal-hole/ (https://nsjonline.com/article/2019/09/landowner-suits-natural-disasters-put-dot-in-fiscal-hole/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 19, 2019, 10:57:34 AM
NCDOT is aiming to reopen NC-12 on Ocracoke in November.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-19-ocracoke-road-repair-plan.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-19-ocracoke-road-repair-plan.aspx)

And NCDOT is holding an informational meeting on September 26 in Rodanthe regarding the ongoing bridge project there.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-19-september-rodanthe-bridge-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-19-september-rodanthe-bridge-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MNHighwayMan on September 20, 2019, 05:54:57 AM
The new (albeit short) connector road between NC-55 and Talton Avenue in Mount Olive is open and has been named Pickle Road.

That's not actually related to the brand of pickles, is it?

Edit: I guess if I actually read the article, it'd answer my question. And, yes, yes it is related.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on September 20, 2019, 10:55:24 AM
I found that out when passing by:
https://goo.gl/maps/a2YDPx3HSbYQg2436
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: KEVIN_224 on September 20, 2019, 02:59:13 PM
This happened along I-40 East in North Carolina. Story is from WLOS-TV (ABC) channel 13 of Asheville:

https://wlos.com/news/local/traffic-alert-i-40-east-closed-near-exit-53-after-crash?fbclid=IwAR32-tdzp17bVJX3tCzUVC1Y2V04c7HvgRVhHw5vwItOP1F5BOiR6BrVpbQ

A tractor trailer took out an entire overhead sign gantry. Yikes! :o
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on September 20, 2019, 05:21:43 PM
This happened along I-40 East in North Carolina. Story is from WLOS-TV (ABC) channel 13 of Asheville:

https://wlos.com/news/local/traffic-alert-i-40-east-closed-near-exit-53-after-crash?fbclid=IwAR32-tdzp17bVJX3tCzUVC1Y2V04c7HvgRVhHw5vwItOP1F5BOiR6BrVpbQ

A tractor trailer took out an entire overhead sign gantry. Yikes! :o

That was one of the few sign bridges with the old style lighting fixtures still in place.

(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/040/i-040_eb_exit_053_04.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/nc/040/i-040_eb_exit_053_04.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 20, 2019, 09:01:28 PM
Beginning next Wednesday, the southbound lanes of US-17 in Wilmington between Gordon Road and Station Road will close for 8 weeks.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 21, 2019, 10:49:31 AM
A design-build contract (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/09-10-2019%20Central%20Letting/C204225%20Craven%20Awd%20Lter.pdf) for the US 70 James City improvements was awarded this week. The next section of the I-26 widening to US 64 in Hendersonville was also let this week, but doesn't appear to be awarded yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 23, 2019, 04:48:57 PM
Due to the I-440 project in Raleigh, the Melbourne Road bridge will close for a year, beginning next Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 23, 2019, 06:53:43 PM
Beginning next Wednesday, the southbound lanes of US-17 in Wilmington between Gordon Road and Station Road will close for 8 weeks.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx)

NCDOT has issued a correction. The road will not close, but there will be a traffic shift.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-us-17-traffic-shift-correction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-us-17-traffic-shift-correction.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 23, 2019, 06:54:52 PM
Beginning next Wednesday, the southbound lanes of US-17 in Wilmington between Gordon Road and Station Road will close for 8 weeks.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-20-us-17-traffic-shift.aspx)

NCDOT has issued a correction. The road will not close, but there will be a traffic shift.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-us-17-traffic-shift-correction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-us-17-traffic-shift-correction.aspx)
I was about to say... a closure on a major arterial for 8 weeks?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 23, 2019, 07:52:38 PM
Not unheard of.  Rural arterials in the Upper Midwest routinely get shut down for several weeks during the summer road construction season.  On multilane routes, they'll often do 2-lane/2-way traffic on one carriageway while the other is being rebuilt.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 23, 2019, 08:54:34 PM
Not unheard of.  Rural arterials in the Upper Midwest routinely get shut down for several weeks during the summer road construction season.  On multilane routes, they'll often do 2-lane/2-way traffic on one carriageway while the other is being rebuilt.
The referenced segment of US-17 is an urban arterial in Wilmington, not a rural arterial.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 23, 2019, 09:30:57 PM
A number of those that have seen multi-month shutdowns as well.  MN 36 and I-40 Knoxville being two notable examples.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 24, 2019, 03:00:59 PM
The next section of the I-26 widening to US 64 in Hendersonville was also let this week, but doesn't appear to be awarded yet.

Press release regarding this:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-24-i26-widening-henderson-bids-opened.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-24-i26-widening-henderson-bids-opened.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 25, 2019, 05:14:40 PM
A couple of weeks old, but still interesting...

Must I-95, I-40 always flood after big hurricanes? NCDOT looks for ways to prevent it (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/weather-news/article234964002.html)
Quote
Twice in the last three years, flooding caused by hurricanes has shut down Eastern North Carolina’s major interstate highways, I-40 and I-95, for days at a time, hampering relief efforts and the flow of people and commerce up and down the East Coast.

Now the N.C. Department of Transportation has developed a set of strategies that might keep those roads open after future storms, at a potential cost of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The strategies generally involve lengthening bridges, improving drainage and elevating the highways in areas prone to flooding. They’re presented as a set of options that in the case of I-40 could involve making alternative routes such as U.S. 421 and U.S. 117 less vulnerable to floods in conjunction with changes to the interstate.

Secretary of Transportation Jim Trogdon commissioned the I-95/I-40 Flood Resilience Feasibility Study after Hurricane Florence dropped record amounts of rain on Eastern North Carolina last year, just two years after Hurricane Matthew. Both storms rivaled Hurricane Floyd in 1999, which caused historic flooding that people never expected to see again.

Citing the Fourth National Climate Assessment, released by the Trump administration last fall, the NCDOT report notes that scientists have measured an increase in rainfall from severe storms over the last century and predict climate change will make hurricanes both more common and intense, “meaning storms like Hurricane Matthew and Florence may become more frequent.”

Both storms closed I-95 and I-40 for a week or more. For several days after Florence, all roads leading into Wilmington, including I-40, were closed because of flooding, prompting the state to consider bringing in supplies by ship.

SEVERAL OPTIONS
The NCDOT study was done by the Durham office of Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions and looked at options for improving both the interstate highways and alternate routes. But in the case of I-95, the study concluded there were no viable alternatives, because the parallel roads are equally or more likely to flood.

Instead, the study identifies ways that four sections of I-95 in southeastern North Carolina could be made less prone to flooding. It estimates that longer bridges, better drainage and elevating the highway would cost nearly $320 million if done on their own. But in conjunction with other road projects, such as the planned widening of I-95 in the coming years, the cost would come down to $127.5 million.

The study lays out seven options for improving I-40 or alternate routes. Making I-40 itself less prone to flooding, mostly by elevating the roadway or building new earthen embankments in several places, would cost an estimated $169.5 million.

Two options that entail making some changes to I-40 along with improvements to parallel U.S. 117 would be cheaper, at about $51.5 million each. Other options, such as improving N.C. 24 and U.S. 17 or widening U.S. 701 and U.S. 421, would cost significantly more than reducing the risk of flooding on I-40.

Finally, the study also identifies options for improving N.C. 24 between I-95 near Fayetteville and I-40 near Warsaw.

That road is a four-lane divided highway for most of that route, and improvements there could help it serve as a key connector between the two interstates during floods, the report says. The options range from elevating the highway and building a new bridge at Six Runs Creek east of Clinton for $62.6 million to turning the road into a limited-access freeway for $1.2 billion.

The NCDOT report is dated Aug. 28, but spokesman Steve Abbott says it will be updated as time goes on and referred to as the department plans road projects in the future. For now, NCDOT has delayed hundreds of construction projects across the state because of financial problems caused in part by the cleanup and repairs after Matthew and Florence.
This one surprised me...

Quote
improving N.C. 24 between I-95 near Fayetteville and I-40 near Warsaw. <snip>
The options range from <snip> to turning the road into a limited-access freeway for $1.2 billion.

Such a project would upgrade about 40 miles of roadway to interstate standards, roughly $29 million per mile. Interestingly, just in the past 1-2 years, a project was completed that widened 25 miles of the road between Fayetteville and Clinton to a four-lane divided highway and 5 new location segments (albeit not freeway standard) around more developed areas / towns. It safe to assume that a freeway upgrade would utilize a majority of the existing carriageways and simply construct frontage roads, interchanges, and overpasses where needed. The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

Overall, interesting. I've never heard any proposals for a freeway between I-40 and I-95 along NC-24 until this article. I would say a four-lane connection as is would suffice, especially considering you can already drive an all-freeway routing between the two end points - I-95 to I-40 and vice versa. Travel time is similar, the only thing you save taking NC-24 is ~20 miles - a wash IMO considering 65 mph and 70 mph on the freeway routing, and 55 mph maximum on NC-24.

I would argue that a $1.2 billion freeway project would be better spent on the 40 miles of NC-24 between I-40 and Jacksonville, a route that has more traffic (9,000 - 20,000 AADT) than between I-95 and I-40 (5,000 - 6,000 AADT), and the fact that Jacksonville is the largest city in the state lacking a freeway connection, and one of the largest without interstate access.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 25, 2019, 05:23:16 PM
The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

IIRC, NCDOT has plans for this section on a totally new alignment, starting from the current southern end of the US 421 freeway bypass and heading east to I-40. I don't know if it's planned to be built to freeway standard or just limited access, but I did find the preliminary plans somewhere for the first section of this closest to Clinton.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 25, 2019, 05:33:38 PM
The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

IIRC, NCDOT has plans for this section on a totally new alignment, starting from the current southern end of the US 421 freeway bypass and heading east to I-40. I don't know if it's planned to be built to freeway standard or just limited access, but I did find the preliminary plans somewhere for the first section of this closest to Clinton.
Looking at it from a four-lane arterial perspective, probably the best option. Utilizes the existing bypass, then new location roadway over to I-40. It could tie back into NC-24 near Turkey also, then widen the rest of the way to 4-lanes.

Ideally, a bypass for NC-24 should start just east of Bonnetsville to bypass the urban segment before the existing bypass, but again, looking from a four-lane arterial perspective with low thru traffic counts, and most traffic likely originating / destined to/from Clinton, and a routing with a full-freeway option (I-95 to I-40) available for long-distance travelers from points east of I-95 or from I-95 itself to points west of I-40 or to I-40 itself, and vice versa, it's probably not a priority to go around that.

The whole concept of making NC-24 into a four-lane arterial highway seems mostly to provide better access between the interstates for local traffic originating / destined to/from Clinton rather than thru traffic utilizing the corridor between I-95 and I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 25, 2019, 06:09:35 PM
Twice in the last three years, flooding caused by hurricanes has shut down Eastern North Carolina’s major interstate highways, I-40 and I-95, for days at a time, hampering relief efforts and the flow of people and commerce up and down the East Coast.
Given 10 to 15 inches of rainfall in 24 to 48 hours, very few low-lying highways won't flood.

I-95 in Richmond has flooded 3 times that I am aware of, due to James River flooding, at the low-lying section at the Maury Street interchange.  In 1969 (Camille remnants), in 1972 (Agnes remnants), and in 1985 (Juan remnants).

1985 --
"By November 7, a day after the rain had ended, the James River crested at 30.76 feet at City Locks in Richmond.  'This really was the last major flood in metro Richmond before the flood wall was constructed,' 8News Chief Meteorologist John Bernier recalls."
https://www.wric.com/news/remembering-the-election-day-flood-of-1985/

In 1969 and in 1972 there was no alternative route thru the Richmond area other than US-1.  Today there are freeway routes: I-295, Route 895, and the routing of I-195, VA-76 and VA-150.

I used the last route while I-95 was closed in 1985 and it was strange to see Interstate levels of large truck traffic on I-195, VA-76 and VA-150.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 25, 2019, 06:35:25 PM
The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

IIRC, NCDOT has plans for this section on a totally new alignment, starting from the current southern end of the US 421 freeway bypass and heading east to I-40. I don't know if it's planned to be built to freeway standard or just limited access, but I did find the preliminary plans somewhere for the first section of this closest to Clinton.
Looking at it from a four-lane arterial perspective, probably the best option. Utilizes the existing bypass, then new location roadway over to I-40. It could tie back into NC-24 near Turkey also, then widen the rest of the way to 4-lanes.

Ideally, a bypass for NC-24 should start just east of Bonnetsville to bypass the urban segment before the existing bypass, but again, looking from a four-lane arterial perspective with low thru traffic counts, and most traffic likely originating / destined to/from Clinton, and a routing with a full-freeway option (I-95 to I-40) available for long-distance travelers from points east of I-95 or from I-95 itself to points west of I-40 or to I-40 itself, and vice versa, it's probably not a priority to go around that.

The whole concept of making NC-24 into a four-lane arterial highway seems mostly to provide better access between the interstates for local traffic originating / destined to/from Clinton rather than thru traffic utilizing the corridor between I-95 and I-40.
I agree and I don't think there's any support for making NC 24 a freeway. NC 24 from Morehead City to Fayetteville followed by NC 27 from Fayetteville to Charlotte is a significant arterial highway crossing much of the state. It's a really  old-fashioned idea, but it would make a good US numbered highway, such as US 274.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 25, 2019, 07:00:29 PM
The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

IIRC, NCDOT has plans for this section on a totally new alignment, starting from the current southern end of the US 421 freeway bypass and heading east to I-40. I don't know if it's planned to be built to freeway standard or just limited access, but I did find the preliminary plans somewhere for the first section of this closest to Clinton.
Looking at it from a four-lane arterial perspective, probably the best option. Utilizes the existing bypass, then new location roadway over to I-40. It could tie back into NC-24 near Turkey also, then widen the rest of the way to 4-lanes.

Ideally, a bypass for NC-24 should start just east of Bonnetsville to bypass the urban segment before the existing bypass, but again, looking from a four-lane arterial perspective with low thru traffic counts, and most traffic likely originating / destined to/from Clinton, and a routing with a full-freeway option (I-95 to I-40) available for long-distance travelers from points east of I-95 or from I-95 itself to points west of I-40 or to I-40 itself, and vice versa, it's probably not a priority to go around that.

The whole concept of making NC-24 into a four-lane arterial highway seems mostly to provide better access between the interstates for local traffic originating / destined to/from Clinton rather than thru traffic utilizing the corridor between I-95 and I-40.
I agree and I don't think there's any support for making NC 24 a freeway. NC 24 from Morehead City to Fayetteville followed by NC 27 from Fayetteville to Charlotte is a significant arterial highway crossing much of the state. It's a really  old-fashioned idea, but it would make a good US numbered highway, such as US 274.
I agree, and a freeway is pointless along most of the routing mostly due to the fact long-distance has freeway options that are similar travel times to the arterial.

Fayetteville to Charlotte has I-95 and US-74, which while isn’t freeway, is planned to be. Fayetteville to Warsaw has I-95 and I-40, and Charlotte to Warsaw has either I-40, I-95, and US-74 (see above comment), and also I-40 to I-85, all similar travel times to the arterial.

I will say again though, the only stretch that should be a reasonable candidate for freeway is I-40 to Jacksonville - the only portion of the 24/27 corridor not supplemented by a freeway for long-distance.

Just don’t tell Fritz all this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on September 25, 2019, 07:51:32 PM
Not unheard of.  Rural arterials in the Upper Midwest routinely get shut down for several weeks during the summer road construction season.  On multilane routes, they'll often do 2-lane/2-way traffic on one carriageway while the other is being rebuilt.
Several weeks? It seems like I-90 in South Dakota between Kadoka and Belvidere has been closed and under construction for years!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 25, 2019, 09:04:07 PM
Twice in the last three years, flooding caused by hurricanes has shut down Eastern North Carolina’s major interstate highways, I-40 and I-95, for days at a time, hampering relief efforts and the flow of people and commerce up and down the East Coast.
Given 10 to 15 inches of rainfall in 24 to 48 hours, very few low-lying highways won't flood.

I-95 in Richmond has flooded 3 times that I am aware of, due to James River flooding, at the low-lying section at the Maury Street interchange.  In 1969 (Camille remnants), in 1972 (Agnes remnants), and in 1985 (Juan remnants).

1985 --
"By November 7, a day after the rain had ended, the James River crested at 30.76 feet at City Locks in Richmond.  'This really was the last major flood in metro Richmond before the flood wall was constructed,' 8News Chief Meteorologist John Bernier recalls."
https://www.wric.com/news/remembering-the-election-day-flood-of-1985/

In 1969 and in 1972 there was no alternative route thru the Richmond area other than US-1.  Today there are freeway routes: I-295, Route 895, and the routing of I-195, VA-76 and VA-150.

I used the last route while I-95 was closed in 1985 and it was strange to see Interstate levels of large truck traffic on I-195, VA-76 and VA-150.
Climate change!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 25, 2019, 09:19:27 PM
Hurricane cycles haven't changed, just that there are a lot more people and development in flood prone areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 25, 2019, 09:31:28 PM
Hurricane cycles haven't changed, just that there are a lot more people and development in flood prone areas.
Exactly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on September 26, 2019, 09:22:55 AM
The segment between Clinton and I-40 however is still 2-lane roadway and would either upgrade the existing road to a four-lane freeway with frontage roads or new location.

IIRC, NCDOT has plans for this section on a totally new alignment, starting from the current southern end of the US 421 freeway bypass and heading east to I-40. I don't know if it's planned to be built to freeway standard or just limited access, but I did find the preliminary plans somewhere for the first section of this closest to Clinton.
Looking at it from a four-lane arterial perspective, probably the best option. Utilizes the existing bypass, then new location roadway over to I-40. It could tie back into NC-24 near Turkey also, then widen the rest of the way to 4-lanes.

Ideally, a bypass for NC-24 should start just east of Bonnetsville to bypass the urban segment before the existing bypass, but again, looking from a four-lane arterial perspective with low thru traffic counts, and most traffic likely originating / destined to/from Clinton, and a routing with a full-freeway option (I-95 to I-40) available for long-distance travelers from points east of I-95 or from I-95 itself to points west of I-40 or to I-40 itself, and vice versa, it's probably not a priority to go around that.

The whole concept of making NC-24 into a four-lane arterial highway seems mostly to provide better access between the interstates for local traffic originating / destined to/from Clinton rather than thru traffic utilizing the corridor between I-95 and I-40.

I think the biggest reason that NCDOT is trying to make 24 a multi-lane a highway is because 24 serves both Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 26, 2019, 11:31:42 AM
Upcoming Cape Fear Memorial Bridge closures in Wilmington due to inspections.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-26-wilmington-bridge-closures-inspection.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-26-wilmington-bridge-closures-inspection.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 26, 2019, 05:16:43 PM
I think the biggest reason that NCDOT is trying to make 24 a multi-lane a highway is because 24 serves both Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg.
I-95 > I-40 > NC-24.

Already a four-lane connection with similar travel times to NC-24 straight across connecting the endpoints.

The main goal with widening NC-24 was probably focused more on traffic bound to Clinton and the communities on that route, rather than thru-traffic that already has an adequate interstate highway connection.

They need to focus on upgrading NC-24 between I-40 and Jacksonville to freeway standards, designate it as an I-x40. That would provide a full interstate-highway connection between the two bases, and also provide Camp Lejeune & Jacksonville direct access to I-40 and I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 26, 2019, 06:21:50 PM
Hurricane cycles haven't changed, just that there are a lot more people and development in flood prone areas.
Exactly.
I agree in general, but one thing seems to have changed: hurricanes are carrying more rain and can produce larger fresh water floods than in the past.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on September 26, 2019, 07:58:23 PM
Hurricane cycles haven't changed, just that there are a lot more people and development in flood prone areas.
Exactly.
I agree in general, but one thing seems to have changed: hurricanes are carrying more rain and can produce larger fresh water floods than in the past.

No they are not, not over the long term.  Hurricanes operate in about 24-year cycles.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 27, 2019, 06:02:17 AM
Greensboro is pushing to have US-421 between the city and I-95 become a future interstate.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/ (http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 27, 2019, 07:18:45 AM
Greensboro is pushing to have US-421 between the city and I-95 become a future interstate.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/ (http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/)

I really that if this ever goes anywhere, they don't just upgrade 421 from Sanford to Dunn. Any interstate leaving Greensboro down 421 should go to Fayetteville via NC 87 and connect to the recently-upgraded NC 87/210 expressway at Fort Bragg.

I-38? :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 27, 2019, 09:36:30 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy
connect to the recently-upgraded NC 87/210 expressway at Fort Bragg.

This won't work unless you either destroy what's left of the middle of Spring Lake or relocate a major high-tension power line ($$$$$).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on September 27, 2019, 09:44:36 AM
Greensboro is pushing to have US-421 between the city and I-95 become a future interstate.

http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/ (http://www.rhinotimes.com/news/gate-city-headed-for-another-interstate-highway/)

I really that if this ever goes anywhere, they don't just upgrade 421 from Sanford to Dunn. Any interstate leaving Greensboro down 421 should go to Fayetteville via NC 87 and connect to the recently-upgraded NC 87/210 expressway at Fort Bragg.

I-38? :sombrero:

I like the idea of it going down to Fayetteville. I guess if NCDOT approves it, it's gonna take a while before we ever see it come to fruition due to their funding problems.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on September 27, 2019, 10:31:24 AM
I'd rather go for an 3di than a 2di since it's just a bypass of R-D.  Since there are more Ix95's available I'd say reuse I-495.  Or it wouldn't be that bad to multiplex I-42 with I-95 then I-42 would reach Greensboro via this proposal.  The part of I-42 between I-95 and I-40 would be renumbered I-242.

But I'm not sure US 421 is a good corridor east of Sanford.  And going to Fayetteville goes away from the point of being a R-D bypass.  If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 27, 2019, 10:52:32 AM
A hypothetical I-38 from Greensboro to Fayetteville could also be extended further along NC 24 to I-40 or as far as Jacksonville, fulfilling that idea as well. It would probably need to be routed around I-295 and 95, though, as taking it through Fayetteville would require a circuitous route involving extending the All-American Freeway to the MLK Jr. Freeway and then extending said freeway around the north side of downtown to connect to NC 24 before I-95, or building a new connector around the southeast side. This would be very expensive and disruptive, especially extending the All-American Freeway.

Though now we're straying into fictional territory...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 27, 2019, 11:39:33 AM
A contract to extend Louis Stephens Drive under NC-540 has been awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-27-louis-stephens-dr-extension.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-27-louis-stephens-dr-extension.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 27, 2019, 05:46:23 PM
US-421, NC-87, and NC-24 would be the best routing IMO, as opposed to following US-421 all the way to Dunn.

Following US-421 all the way has its benefits, especially for Greensboro & points west traffic heading to Wilmington, they'd have a bypass of Raleigh-Durham, but considering the major improvements either underway / near future construction on I-40 - including widening to 6 lanes between Chapel Hill and I-85, plus the upcoming NC-540 Bypass, which, once linked to the I-42 / I-40 interchange, will provide a full interstate-grade 70 mph 6-lane bypass of Raleigh - it almost seems pointless to follow that corridor as opposed to NC-87 and NC-24, which would fill in a missing gap on the interstate system - the Greensboro to Fayetteville / Fort Bragg / I-95 South connection - something that following US-421 all the way would not link - it'd be just as good as simply taking I-40 from Greensboro > I-95 South - not efficient & adds significant travel time.

As for potential improvements - the segment between I-85 and Siler City is already limited-access, just needs a few interchanges built to replace the few remaining at-grade intersections, and then widen the shoulders to 10 foot. The segment between Siler City and the Sanford Bypass could reasonable be upgraded to interstate standards on existing alignment, and the Sanford Bypass is already interstate-standard. South of Sanford is where it gets tricky, likely some new location alignments would be necessary. Near Fayetteville / Fort Bragg would likely be the most complex area, and would need some detailed studies to determine the best routing near Spring Lake, either some convoluted new alignment, or a narrow upgrade of the existing corridor through Spring Lake, then following the recently-completed NC-24 freeway back to I-295.

Designation - Reasonable an I-x40, I-x85, or I-x95, beginning at the I-85 / US-421 interchange in Greensboro, following US-421, NC-87, and NC-24 to I-295. Then, an overlap with I-295 (similar to Greensboro with I-785) along the future southern loop back to I-95 South.

A more fictional idea could be to extend the interstate designation to Wilkesboro along the US-421 freeway. From the I-85 / US-421 junction, you'd follow the I-85 South, I-73 North, and I-40 West until the split with the US-421 freeway west of Winston-Salem, then continue to Wilkesboro. That would total a ~200 mile corridor between Wilkesboro and Fayetteville, and then you could designate it as a I-3x or I-4x.

It's going to be interesting to see if this becomes an official future interstate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on September 27, 2019, 10:46:31 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy
connect to the recently-upgraded NC 87/210 expressway at Fort Bragg.

This won't work unless you either destroy what's left of the middle of Spring Lake or relocate a major high-tension power line ($$$$$).

The State Transportation Plan has the Spring Lake Bypass on a eastern alignment.  ROW acquisition is to begin in 2026, but the construction date is not set to begin until sometime after 2029.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 27, 2019, 10:58:07 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Project%20Breakdown%20Maps/U-5802.pdf

At first glance, doesn’t appear to be a freeway, though with modifications, especially if this Greensboro - Fayetteville interstate comes to fruition, could be built as a freeway on that alignment or similar, just with a few curves.

Did not realize that a bypass was feasible - though it appears it may be indeed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 28, 2019, 09:27:02 AM
I discounted that "eastern bypass" as an option because there's likely a reason nothing has been built through or in those woods.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 01, 2019, 09:47:22 AM
Upcoming lane closures on NC-180 due to the US-74 Shelby Bypass project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-shelby-bypass-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-shelby-bypass-closures.aspx)

And the Southport-Fort Fisher ferry has resumed service.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-southport-ferry-resume.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-30-southport-ferry-resume.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 01, 2019, 03:38:42 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 01, 2019, 03:41:17 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-troy-bypass-final-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-troy-bypass-final-traffic-shift.aspx)

Quote
TROY — Drivers traveling west on N.C. 24/27 from Biscoe to Troy will have full access to the Troy Bypass starting this week.

The new westbound lanes of the bypass between existing N.C. 24/27 and Page Street are scheduled to open to traffic about 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday. Both directions of traffic had been utilizing the eastbound lanes along this stretch since Aug. 7, when the N.C. Department of Transportation opened the 6.6-mile highway.

The closure of the westbound side was needed to complete the connection to the existing highway and Glen Road, which has also been closed since Aug. 7 and will reopen as part of this traffic shift.

Drivers should be cautious as crews will be in and out of the roadway while the shift is completed.

Work will continue under daily lane closures in both directions for the next several weeks as the contractor places the final asphalt layer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 01, 2019, 04:17:32 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on October 01, 2019, 05:47:31 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone
I looked at US 64 to I-40 but I don't see any prospect of that route being a interstate especially west of Asheboro.  There's no part of the existing route west of Asheboro that can be used.  It would all have to be a new highway.  So I don't think that bodes well.

If you wanted to go west of Greensboro then I think it would need to be a new route between Siler City and where I-73 and I-74 split.  (It's too bad the Asheboro bypass is on the south side instead of the north side.  Otherwise it could be usable for this route.)   From there follow I-74 to the W-S beltway.  Then follow the W-S beltway to US 421.  Then follow that to Boone. 

An alternative to this could be to use a more northerly route say like around the NC 62 corridor to connect from US 421 to I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on October 01, 2019, 05:57:12 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
Don't worry, this is the one that actually cares about the environment, unlike... the other one...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 01, 2019, 06:20:52 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
Relax, everyone. The upgrades to create I-42 and I-87 will keep NCDOT busy for a long time. These ideas belong in the Fictional forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on October 01, 2019, 06:31:27 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
Relax, everyone. The upgrades to create I-42 and I-87 will keep NCDOT busy for a long time. These ideas belong in the Fictional forum.
They came from the Fictional forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 01, 2019, 07:43:35 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
Relax, everyone. The upgrades to create I-42 and I-87 will keep NCDOT busy for a long time. These ideas belong in the Fictional forum.
They came from the Fictional forum.
Keep this in the fictional forum. This is a board for discussion to general North Carolina topics that don't have their own thread.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 01, 2019, 07:44:06 PM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

Sounds like someone else on here...almost down to the wording.
I thought it was him until I saw the actual post.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on October 02, 2019, 07:33:14 AM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

I had my version of I-42 use that same routing expect it continues to Asheboro, use the Asheboro Bypass, and turning more towards NC 49 until it ties into I-85 near Kannapolis. That way it can be used as a Charlotte route without having to go through th Triad, or barley much of the Triangle.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 02, 2019, 07:54:27 AM
If only I-42 could use part of future NC 540 to reach US 64.  And use the US 64 corridor to Siler City to then use the US 421 corridor to Greensboro.  That would be a better I-42 extension.  The route to Fayetteville could be an even I-x42.

Your section to Siler City is part of my I-42. My I-42 continues past Siler City on 64 past Lexington to Mocksville, then onto U.S. 601 to U.S. 421 at Yadkinville, and continuing west on 421 before ending in Boone

I had my version of I-42 use that same routing expect it continues to Asheboro, use the Asheboro Bypass, and turning more towards NC 49 until it ties into I-85 near Kannapolis. That way it can be used as a Charlotte route without having to go through th Triad, or barley much of the Triangle.

Please keep the fictional stuff in the fictional section of the forum. Thanks!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2019, 11:44:46 AM
The ferry system has announced new schedules and NC-12 on Ocracoke Island will reopen this Thursday, albeit with limitations.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-ocracoke-emergency-routes-october.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-ocracoke-emergency-routes-october.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2019, 01:06:49 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-johnston-county-nc-42-repairs.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-johnston-county-nc-42-repairs.aspx)

Quote
​CLAYTON — Contract crews will conduct lane closures on a stretch of N.C. 42 in Johnston County on Thursday to make repairs to the pavement.

The two-lane highway will be reduced to one lane between Neuse River Parkway and Trillium Way between 9 a.m. and noon. The crew will patch an area of the pavement that has settled and caused a dip in the road.

Drivers should proceed slowly through the work zone, expect delays and be aware of flagging operations directing traffic through the opened lane.

This stretch is part of a $58.7 million contract awarded last year to widen 4.6 miles of N.C. 42, construct  a median and make other upgrades, which include installing new culverts underneath the highway. The project will be completed by the summer of 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2019, 05:41:30 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 02, 2019, 05:58:35 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)
Any more projects going to get accelerated like this due to Build NC?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 02, 2019, 06:14:33 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)
Any more projects going to get accelerated like this due to Build NC?

I don't know, but I'd like to find out too. bob7374 may know more about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 02, 2019, 06:26:03 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)
Any more projects going to get accelerated like this due to Build NC?
I don't know, but I'd like to find out too. bob7374 may know more about it.
According to NCDOT, last year Build NC led to the acceleration of 350 projects and made room for an additional 144 projects on the 2020-2029 STIP. The only way I know to find out about future accelerated projects is to monitor the 12- month tentative contract letting and changes lists: https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Pages/12month.aspx (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Pages/12month.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 02, 2019, 07:22:46 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)

Can they not finish the nearby Shelby Bypass first? It only started in 2013 and a third of it has been delayed until 2024 with a 2027 completion, but why get in a rush now? There's only 45,000 cars on 74 through Shelby every day. It's not like a seamless freeway is needed between Charlotte and Asheville. But now we have strategic prioritization to fund and build highway projects. Right.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 02, 2019, 07:33:14 PM
There's only 45,000 cars on 74 through Shelby every day.
Those 7,000 cars per day through Rutherfordton is obviously more important.

Ridiculous. Shelby should be completed first before any of this US-221 stuff happens.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 02, 2019, 07:44:51 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)
Any more projects going to get accelerated like this due to Build NC?
Shame on me for seeing this project for the first time, but having worked at Trip City Mall for 18 months and commuting to Morganton, they are really missing the boat on the design of the Charlotte Road interchange.  They should really find a better way of merging the US 74 Alt expressway into 221 north.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 02, 2019, 07:47:51 PM
Two projects to build the US-221 Rutherfordton Bypass have been put on the 2020 Build NC bond issuance list with construction to begin next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-02-build-nc-funds-rutherfordton-bypass.aspx)

Can they not finish the nearby Shelby Bypass first? It only started in 2013 and a third of it has been delayed until 2024 with a 2027 completion, but why get in a rush now? There's only 45,000 cars on 74 through Shelby every day. It's not like a seamless freeway is needed between Charlotte and Asheville. But now we have strategic prioritization to fund and build highway projects. Right.
The big dirty secret is that the big money in Shelby are not in a hurry to see the bypass done, if it we're not for pressure from Walmart distribution for an escape to the west, you would see far less progress.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 02, 2019, 07:50:44 PM
There's only 45,000 cars on 74 through Shelby every day.
Those 7,000 cars per day through Rutherfordton is obviously more important.

Ridiculous. Shelby should be completed first before any of this US-221 stuff happens.
You cannot go by the ADT on 221 through town, right now most traffic cuts through to US74 Alt and goes north to the US 64 on ramp.  An ADT on Alt 74 at Oak street would be a better indicator, The Shelby Bypass would still, however win by a mile.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 02, 2019, 07:54:14 PM
There's only 45,000 cars on 74 through Shelby every day.
Those 7,000 cars per day through Rutherfordton is obviously more important.

Ridiculous. Shelby should be completed first before any of this US-221 stuff happens.
You cannot go by the ADT on 221 through town, right now most traffic cuts through to US74 Alt and goes north to the US 64 on ramp.  An ADT on Alt 74 at Oak street would be a better indicator, The Shelby Bypass would still, however win by a mile.
The AADT north of town is 6,000. It jumps to 15,000 on the 4-lane Rutherford Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 02, 2019, 07:56:47 PM
Where does that 15000 ADT occur?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 02, 2019, 08:25:42 PM
Where does that 15000 ADT occur?

Here's an NCDOT web map (http://arcg.is/1uXmiy) that will show you the AADT around the Tri-Cities (and the rest of the state).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 11:32:14 AM
Upcoming I-440 closures in Raleigh.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-440-closures-melbourne-bridge-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-440-closures-melbourne-bridge-demo.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 02:36:19 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE — A 6-mile section of a Jones County highway will close for construction for about 12 hours Monday.

Beginning at 6:30 a.m. Oct. 7, the southbound lanes of the U.S. 17 Bypass between U.S. 70 and U.S. 17 Business will be closed. All lanes are expected to reopen around 6:30 p.m.

During the closure, N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews will be paving at the interchange.

Eastbound motorists on U.S. 70 wanting to access U.S. 17 South will continue past the interchange and drive about 6 miles to the U.S. 17 Business exit, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Drivers will continue down the ramp, making a right at the light to drive about 7 miles on U.S. 17 Business South.

Westbound motorists on U.S. 70 will drive past the interchange and exit at Clarks Road. Drivers will turn left at the stop sign, continue across the bridge to make a left back onto U.S. 70 east. People will drive about 6 miles to the U.S. 17 Business exit, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Drivers will make a right at the light and drive about 7 miles on U.S. 17 Business South.

This construction is part of a 16.3-mile project, which starts south of Belgrade and ties into the U.S. 17 bypass around New Bern. The project costs about $143.4 million and is expected to be completed in November.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 05:05:44 PM
The ferry system has announced new schedules and NC-12 on Ocracoke Island will reopen this Thursday, albeit with limitations.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-ocracoke-emergency-routes-october.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-01-ocracoke-emergency-routes-october.aspx)

Another update regarding the ferry system.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-ocracoke-emergency-sound-routes-october.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-ocracoke-emergency-sound-routes-october.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2019, 05:34:56 PM
Planned overnight ramp closures at the I-40/NC-54 (Chapel Hill Rd) interchange in Raleigh.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-40-nc-54-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-40-nc-54-ramp-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 06, 2019, 05:45:47 PM
Back to the Rutherfordton Bypass, here are the public meeting maps from 2011. They're going to wipe out a bunch of homes and businesses in an already economically depressed area. It seems like a high cost and impact for not much benefit.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-3.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 06, 2019, 07:09:07 PM
Back to the Rutherfordton Bypass, here are the public meeting maps from 2011. They're going to wipe out a bunch of homes and businesses in an already economically depressed area. It seems like a high cost and impact for not much benefit.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-3.pdf
Planned overnight ramp closures at the I-40/NC-54 (Chapel Hill Rd) interchange in Raleigh.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-40-nc-54-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-i-40-nc-54-ramp-closures.aspx)
Back to the Rutherfordton Bypass, here are the public meeting maps from 2011. They're going to wipe out a bunch of homes and businesses in an already economically depressed area. It seems like a high cost and impact for not much benefit.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-1.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-2.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-3.pdf

I regularly travel through this area as part of my job, we have locations at Tru City mall in Forest City and Marion, I live near South Mountains  park.  The section that will soon start is somewhat needed.  There is a good flow of traffic west (north) on US 74 Alt.  Much of this is through traffic bound for Marion via 221 and Morganton  via 64.  From 4 to 7 in the evening, there are multi signal backups at a
Alt 74 and Charlotte Rd and at Alt 74 at 64 turning left at the Food Lion.  US 221 towards Marion has lengthy backups with 20 cars stuck behind a slow semi. SB on 221, the ramp to US 64 is frequently backed into 221.  The intersection of Alt 74 and Oak Street is also severely under stress. I think NC Dot has made an error in origin and destination here, however.  Right now, all that is past needed  is a way to extend the 4 lane of 74 Alt to 221 north of town.  The interchanges at Chalotte Road and US 64 would be needed.  Under the plan NCDot is building, there is no direct connection to/from 221 to 74 Alt.  Note how close these 2 roads pass south of Chalotte Rd.  I would just end the road there with direct ramps and call it a day.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 06, 2019, 08:05:25 PM
Made this interactive Google My Maps showing the proposed alignment of the bypass, since the maps can be slightly unclear.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LFjjT7TT5RkJRDOuOxzDu9XA7pNzPKLJ&usp=sharing

I personally think NCDOT should upgrade the last 1/2 mile stretch between US-74 and the proposed bypass to full freeway standards and construct a free-flowing interchange with US-74, or at least a flyover from US-221 South to US-74 East. Better connectivity for US-74 to US-221 traffic to have an all-freeway movement as opposed to 1/2 mile of arterial in between.

Then for fictional territory - if US-74 ever becomes an interstate highway, the bypass could become an I-xXX.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on October 06, 2019, 10:58:07 PM
Then for fictional territory - if US-74 ever becomes an interstate highway, the bypass could become an I-xXX.
There is no Fictional thread on this, so I might as well say this here. My other fictional ideas stay in Fictional.

It seems to me that it would be easier and more cost effective to run I-74 west from Rockingham instead of north, following US 74, I-485, I-85, US 74 again, I-26, US 23, KY 114, US 460, KY 7, KY 519, KY 32, KY 11, KY 9, US 27, I-471, I-71 and I-75 to meet up with its original section. The route through West Virginia is multiplexed with I-73, and it's going to take forever to build either way. The sections already designated between Rockingham and the Virginia line could be redesignated as 3dis, and I-26 could have its western terminus at I-74 in Columbus, NC.

I'm done now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 07, 2019, 06:26:58 AM
I personally think NCDOT should upgrade the last 1/2 mile stretch between US-74 and the proposed bypass to full freeway standards and construct a free-flowing interchange with US-74, or at least a flyover from US-221 South to US-74 East. Better connectivity for US-74 to US-221 traffic to have an all-freeway movement as opposed to 1/2 mile of arterial in between.

At least they're hardly touching anything south of the Birch Hutchins Road intersection, so it won't be wasting any work to upgrade the interchange with 74 later.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2019, 12:03:47 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-07-johnston-county-traffic-shift-nc-42.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-07-johnston-county-traffic-shift-nc-42.aspx)

Quote
​CLAYTON — A traffic shift needed for the N.C. 42 widening in Johnston County will occur Wednesday.

Starting at 8 p.m., contract workers will set up orange drums and direct traffic onto the two newly built lanes between Glen Laurel Road and Fox Ridge Road. The shift will allow the contractor to begin reconstructing the other side of N.C. 42.

Motorists should slow down and pay attention as they travel into the work zone and go through the traffic shift.

The N.C. Department of Transportation is widening 4.6 miles of the two-lane highway into four lanes with a raised median, concrete curb and gutters and other improvements between Glen Laurel Road and Buffalo Road. The $58.7 million contract was awarded last year.

The project will be completed by the summer of 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2019, 05:25:24 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx)

Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE — A 6-mile section of a Jones County highway will close for construction for about 12 hours Monday.

Beginning at 6:30 a.m. Oct. 7, the southbound lanes of the U.S. 17 Bypass between U.S. 70 and U.S. 17 Business will be closed. All lanes are expected to reopen around 6:30 p.m.

During the closure, N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews will be paving at the interchange.

Eastbound motorists on U.S. 70 wanting to access U.S. 17 South will continue past the interchange and drive about 6 miles to the U.S. 17 Business exit, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Drivers will continue down the ramp, making a right at the light to drive about 7 miles on U.S. 17 Business South.

Westbound motorists on U.S. 70 will drive past the interchange and exit at Clarks Road. Drivers will turn left at the stop sign, continue across the bridge to make a left back onto U.S. 70 east. People will drive about 6 miles to the U.S. 17 Business exit, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. Drivers will make a right at the light and drive about 7 miles on U.S. 17 Business South.

This construction is part of a 16.3-mile project, which starts south of Belgrade and ties into the U.S. 17 bypass around New Bern. The project costs about $143.4 million and is expected to be completed in November.

Due to rain, this has been pushed back to tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-04-jones-county-bypass-paving-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 07, 2019, 05:30:34 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting on October 10 in Winston-Salem to discuss improvements to US-158 between Business 40 and Belews Creek Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-07-reidsville-road-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-07-reidsville-road-upgrades.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 09, 2019, 08:39:00 AM
The only NC-related news regarding AASHTO's recent fall meeting is the re-routing of US-70 in the Triad and signing the new bypasses of Pollocksville and Maysville as US-17 while the current US-17 alignments through those towns become US-17 Business.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413 (https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/b/ba/ba708eca603c86f1/000_USRN_Agenda_and_List_of_Applications__AM_St_Louis__MO-2019_%28nc%29.original.1570033411.pdf?1570033413)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: TimQuiQui on October 09, 2019, 09:46:21 AM
That's a pretty significant rerouting of 70, and amazingly NC is taking it off an Interstate multiplex. It's going from central Greensboro to north Thomasville. Probably 20-25 mile route change
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on October 09, 2019, 10:25:53 AM
For US 70 it says affirmative with condition.  What's the condition?  Also I assume that NC 68 will get truncated since all of the southern portion would otherwise be multiplexed with US 70. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2019, 06:13:27 PM
That's a pretty significant rerouting of 70, and amazingly NC is taking it off an Interstate multiplex. It's going from central Greensboro to north Thomasville. Probably 20-25 mile route change
Looks like a good idea IMHO. I'm glad to see western Wendover Avenue getting a route number.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 09, 2019, 11:30:19 PM
I've been trying to find other sources for a map of the new US 70 alignment since AASHTO hasn't posted the applications on their site yet. The application noted 2 MPOs that had approved resolutions: the Greensboro one, GUAMPO did so on May 8 while the High Point one, HPUAMPO did so on May 28. The first just had a meeting summary document listing the approval of the resolution while the latter indicated in the posted agenda a presentation by someone at NCDOT, however the minutes that might have included a map have not been posted online. Guess I'll have to be patient (the NCDOT Route Changes page which posts maps or AASHTO applications has not been updated in 2 years).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on October 11, 2019, 05:38:08 AM
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t US 421 (soon to be former Green 40) through Downtown Winston-Salem supposed to be opened back up by the end of this month?  I wonder if they’re gonna make it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 11, 2019, 06:32:40 PM
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t US 421 (soon to be former Green 40) through Downtown Winston-Salem supposed to be opened back up by the end of this month?  I wonder if they’re gonna make it?
"Business 40 is expected to open sometime in early 2020." This is from:
https://www.business40nc.com/Pages/construction-timeline.aspx
This is not news, since the same estimate was made in July:
https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-on-track-to-reopen-in-spring-of-here-s/article_a49b8a67-7801-5cf5-933d-5b894e3da3ce.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on October 12, 2019, 04:09:10 PM
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t US 421 (soon to be former Green 40) through Downtown Winston-Salem supposed to be opened back up by the end of this month?  I wonder if they’re gonna make it?
"Business 40 is expected to open sometime in early 2020." This is from:
https://www.business40nc.com/Pages/construction-timeline.aspx
This is not news, since the same estimate was made in July:
https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-on-track-to-reopen-in-spring-of-here-s/article_a49b8a67-7801-5cf5-933d-5b894e3da3ce.html

Ok, was looking at Google Maps with traffic turned on, hovered over the road closure, and it said it was ending on 10/31.  So it was either incorrect, or one particular movement will be opening by then?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 12, 2019, 04:15:06 PM
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t US 421 (soon to be former Green 40) through Downtown Winston-Salem supposed to be opened back up by the end of this month?  I wonder if they’re gonna make it?
"Business 40 is expected to open sometime in early 2020." This is from:
https://www.business40nc.com/Pages/construction-timeline.aspx
This is not news, since the same estimate was made in July:
https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-on-track-to-reopen-in-spring-of-here-s/article_a49b8a67-7801-5cf5-933d-5b894e3da3ce.html

Ok, was looking at Google Maps with traffic turned on, hovered over the road closure, and it said it was ending on 10/31.  So it was either incorrect, or one particular movement will be opening by then?
There's a 99% chance it's incorrect - road closures posted on Google frequently will say something like the end of the month, then reset then to the end of the next month, etc.

A local roadway where I'm at is closed until February, yet every month it keeps updating to the end of the month. For instance, now it's "ending 10/31", last month it said "9/31", etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 14, 2019, 09:26:45 AM
The latest regarding NCDOT's funding problems.

https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/how-we-operate/finance-budget/Pages/mckinsey-ncdot-review.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/how-we-operate/finance-budget/Pages/mckinsey-ncdot-review.aspx)

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article236035813.html (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article236035813.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 14, 2019, 11:52:15 AM
A public meeting is being held on October 22 in Delco to discuss improvements to US-74/76 between Byrdville Freeman Road and Money Hole Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-columbus-county-open-house-us-74-proposal.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-columbus-county-open-house-us-74-proposal.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 14, 2019, 02:06:01 PM
The proposal for the conversion of the Byrdville Freeman Road and Money Hole Road intersections with US 74/76 into Reduced-Conflict Intersections, look a lot like what J-turn intersections would be called here in Wisconsin. I assume the two are one and the same.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 14, 2019, 02:38:09 PM
NC 55 through Holly Springs has been downgraded to Secondary status.  NC 55 Bypass will become mainline NC 55...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2019/2019_10_03.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 14, 2019, 03:43:57 PM
NC 55 through Holly Springs has been downgraded to Secondary status.  NC 55 Bypass will become mainline NC 55...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2019/2019_10_03.pdf


As much as I should not wish on losing a clinch, I am very much happy that NC 55 BYPASS is becoming just NC 55.  I never liked having that gap for NC 55 in Holly Springs just because the route was still bannerless through town.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 14, 2019, 05:03:23 PM
Night work on the I-26 widening project will begin tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-night-work-starting-i26-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-night-work-starting-i26-widening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 15, 2019, 11:53:02 AM
Projects in Cherokee, Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania counties have been placed on the
2020 Build NC bond issuance list.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 15, 2019, 02:00:01 PM
Upcoming lane closures on NC-12 due to dune repairs.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-nc-12-dune-repairs-begin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-14-nc-12-dune-repairs-begin.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 15, 2019, 03:22:02 PM
Projects in Cherokee, Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania counties have been placed on the
2020 Build NC bond issuance list.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx)

When might there be a Burke, Catawba, Caldwell list.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 15, 2019, 03:54:20 PM
Projects in Cherokee, Henderson, Jackson, and Transylvania counties have been placed on the
2020 Build NC bond issuance list.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-15-build-nc-bonds-division-14.aspx)

When might there be a Burke, Catawba, Caldwell list.

Don't know, but I expect there will be more announcements in the near future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 15, 2019, 04:36:14 PM
Glad to see more projects accelerated. Hopefully some projects along future interstate corridors get accelerated as it expands throughout the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 15, 2019, 05:11:11 PM
Glad to see more projects accelerated. Hopefully some projects along future interstate corridors get accelerated as it expands throughout the state.
They should really work on eastern projects to like

1. Upgrade NC 11 between the Southwest Bypass to the CF Harvey Parkway

2. Upgrade NC 11 between US 264 (Northern Bypass) to US 64

3. Widen the Knightdale Bypass from 6 lanes to 8 lanes. Maybe to I-540, but east of it is fine. Doesn't need it.

4. Upgrade US 1 to a freeway in Raleigh. It got pushed back, which is a shame.

5. Complete 540 sooner!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 15, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
The new Southwest Bypass looks like it's ready to open. But it's not yet!! What's going to go on the overhead signs, guys? Discuss. I don't know. I'm pretty sure it will say Goldsboro / Greenville... And the thing I like about those overhead signs is that they are overhead and not towards the grass. That's what I enjoy!!!
https://i.imgur.com/t4HtDHt.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/t4HtDHt.jpg) - (3.76 MB - 5312x2988)

https://i.imgur.com/Sh2ltym.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Sh2ltym.jpg) - (3.93 MB - 5312x2988)
I'll have more next week.


FYI, replaced images with a link, as the were bigger than the 800x600 limit, even though the forum resized them as it still loaded the original sized image in the browser. - rickmastfan67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 06:16:32 AM
https://i.imgur.com/t4HtDHt.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/t4HtDHt.jpg) - (3.76 MB - 5312x2988)

https://i.imgur.com/Sh2ltym.jpg (https://i.imgur.com/Sh2ltym.jpg) - (3.93 MB - 5312x2988)
From those pictures at least, I'd say a few more weeks and it should be open. Nice to see it progressing. The last few times I've been through Greenville en route to Kinston, or points south, it a choke point on the route, and traffic can get heavy, not to mention having to traverse a ~15 mile urban stretch of roadway w/ 35 - 45 mph speed limits while having rural 60 mph highway on either side with no alternative. Will be nice to have a 70 mph freeway to scoot around. The one thing that bugs me is the lack of continuity on the north side, but other than that, still a major improvement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 16, 2019, 07:39:05 AM
Still going to have i think around 20,000 - 40,000 AADT. And i'm sure traffic will go up on the existing northern bypass. a northwest beltway will be needed soon.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Greenville/Greenville%20MPO%20CTP%20Highway%208-23-17.pdf

Which is this. near the NC 33 interchange the existing bypass would probably be truncated to a trumpet interchange and have the new freeway go to NC 11 straight with a free-flowing interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2019, 06:42:21 PM
Still going to have i think around 20,000 - 40,000 AADT. And i'm sure traffic will go up on the existing northern bypass. a northwest beltway will be needed soon.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Greenville/Greenville%20MPO%20CTP%20Highway%208-23-17.pdf

Which is this. near the NC 33 interchange the existing bypass would probably be truncated to a trumpet interchange and have the new freeway go to NC 11 straight with a free-flowing interchange.
All that's really needed is the small segment between US-264 and NC-11, bypassing the existing interchange area, and having free-flow / continuity for NC-11 to/from the western bypass.

The eastern loop is unnecessary IMO, at least until that side gets developed.

The western bypass / NC-11 routing is mostly beneficial for thru traffic / regional needs, whereas the eastern loop would be mostly local traffic, so there would have to be a real push and need to get it done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 17, 2019, 05:02:32 PM
Upcoming US-17 closures in Jones County due to the bypass project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-17-us-17-bypass-lane-closures-pollocksville.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-17-us-17-bypass-lane-closures-pollocksville.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 17, 2019, 08:46:05 PM
There will be ramp closures at the I-40/US-117 interchange in Pender County next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-16-pender-county-interstate-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-16-pender-county-interstate-ramp-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on October 18, 2019, 10:34:07 AM
Still going to have i think around 20,000 - 40,000 AADT. And i'm sure traffic will go up on the existing northern bypass. a northwest beltway will be needed soon.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Greenville/Greenville%20MPO%20CTP%20Highway%208-23-17.pdf

Which is this. near the NC 33 interchange the existing bypass would probably be truncated to a trumpet interchange and have the new freeway go to NC 11 straight with a free-flowing interchange.
All that's really needed is the small segment between US-264 and NC-11, bypassing the existing interchange area, and having free-flow / continuity for NC-11 to/from the western bypass.

The eastern loop is unnecessary IMO, at least until that side gets developed.

The western bypass / NC-11 routing is mostly beneficial for thru traffic / regional needs, whereas the eastern loop would be mostly local traffic, so there would have to be a real push and need to get it done.

I disagree. There are subdivisions already out on that side of Pitt County, especially near Simpson. I think a loop would be very beneficial to all of Pitt County. It also helps bridge eastern Pitt County to the rest of the county because that area feels very isolated. Plus you can go to Washington without having to even touch Greenville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 18, 2019, 11:57:42 AM
Good news for those going to the State Fair.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-18-i-40-nc-54-ramp-lanes-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-18-i-40-nc-54-ramp-lanes-open.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — Travelers using the Interstate 40-N.C. 54 interchange in West Raleigh, including those heading for the N.C. State Fair through next weekend, will have an easier time navigating through the interchange thanks to a recently-completed project to add capacity to the ramps at Exit 290.

The ramp from eastbound I-40 now has three lanes — one right-turn lane towards Cary and two left-turn lanes towards the State Fairgrounds and Raleigh.

Drivers exiting I-40 West now have four lanes — two turning left to go towards Cary and two turning right toward the fairgrounds and Raleigh.

The additional lanes will allow more vehicles to get through the traffic signal during each cycle, reducing travel times.

In addition to having more lanes, the ramps have also been lengthened. Longer ramps and more lanes increase safety and relieve congestion by reducing potential backups onto I-40.

This $2.7 million project began in April.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 18, 2019, 03:05:25 PM
Regarding the Business 40 project in Winston-Salem, lane reopenings are set for this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-18-business-40-winston-salem-lanes-reopen.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-18-business-40-winston-salem-lanes-reopen.aspx)

I'm probably in the minority here, but I would've preferred that the road had become I-640 instead of Salem Parkway...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 18, 2019, 08:31:13 PM
New signage has been posted on the Greenville SW bypass, it says Greenville, Washington, and Snow Hill. at the US 13 interchange. Haven't seen any signage for the cloverleaf interchange yet.

For Forlines Rd, the signage says "Winterville". (at least for southbound. Not sure about northbound, it would probably say Winterville too, but could just be "Forlines Rd")

For NC 102, I've not been over there yet but i'm pretty sure for southbound traffic it will say "Ayden". Northbound would probably just say "NC 102" But could say Ayden too.

For the bypass and NC 11 split, i'm sure the left sign will say "Greenville, Washington" and the right sign would say "Ayden / Winterville". When the northwest bypass gets built, I think they should add "Bethel" in there too.

Where this is at where it says "Wilson", I think Raleigh should be added in there too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6129964,-77.437702,3a,51.7y,195.96h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sFl7xA51Ivy_qBIMBQvJNxA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

For over here, remove the signs from the bridge and make a new overhead sign, have US 264 and an extra space for I-587 on the left side "That says Wilson and Raleigh, not just Wilson." (or have it just I-587 if US 264 gets put back on it's old alignment) and have the new sign on the right say Kinston. Haha. I think they should do that but it might stay on the bridge if it's their choice.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6078664,-77.4375437,3a,75y,268.33h,79.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7O1XvWbBwaTVvLbngAobEg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Here's an example that I would love for it to look like
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1322682,-77.150718,3a,40.8y,286.36h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbdc77Kabd-Q2xCtX3DHdzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 18, 2019, 10:08:30 PM
This is a question since I can't find an I-40 thread on here,

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5792_U-5881_PM_Map_Alt_1.pdf

Could I-40 be extended to Walmart and College rd can be truncated at the Market St interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 19, 2019, 11:48:11 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261
This is a question since I can't find an I-40 thread on here,

You yourself have responded in an earlier I-40 east of Raleigh (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=24686.msg2432677#msg2432677) thread.

Quote
Could I-40 be extended to Walmart and College rd can be truncated at the Market St interchange?

Not without a design exemption.  Spacing's too tight between the proposed 74 and Kings Dr ramps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 19, 2019, 12:06:58 PM
Not without a design exemption.  Spacing's too tight between the proposed 74 and Kings Dr ramps.
I don’t think that spacing is an issue, as long as you have an auxiliary lane between them. I mean, NCDOT has built cloverleafs on newer interstates and have had no issues. I-74 at I-95 around 2006, I-40 at I-95 in the 90s, I-587 will run through the cloverleaf at the NC-11 Bypass in Greenville, I-42 will run through the partial cloverleaf at US-17 outside New Bern which has a small merge on the westbound lanes, and they’re studying one at I-42 and I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2019, 08:38:01 AM
Cloverleaves are an exception, because the loops are considered part of the same interchange.  FHWA does not like short weaving sections between two adjacent interchanges.

Again, NCDOT could apply for a design exemption should they desire Interstate designation.  But that design itself (based on that PDF), does not meet Interstate standard for ramp spacing between two interchanges.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on October 21, 2019, 09:16:49 AM
Cloverleaves are an exception, because the loops are considered part of the same interchange.  FHWA does not like short weaving sections between two adjacent interchanges.
Again, NCDOT could apply for a design exemption should they desire Interstate designation.  But that design itself (based on that PDF), does not meet Interstate standard for ramp spacing between two interchanges.

Doesn't matter.  They'll do it anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on October 21, 2019, 10:34:21 AM
I suppose it could be brought to standard by having the ramps from Kings Drive feed into the ramps to 74 and having slip ramps provide access between 117 and 74.

Slightly disappointed that this upgrade doesn't allow for a freeway-to-freeway connection between 117 and 74, but doing so would be vastly more expensive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2019, 01:45:24 PM
Cloverleaves are an exception, because the loops are considered part of the same interchange.  FHWA does not like short weaving sections between two adjacent interchanges.

Again, NCDOT could apply for a design exemption should they desire Interstate designation.  But that design itself (based on that PDF), does not meet Interstate standard for ramp spacing between two interchanges.
When they built the US-17 New Bern Bypass, they tied it into US-70 between two interchanges, and there’s two areas of short weaving because of three rural interchanges within a mile, and it’s now being incorporated into I-42.

I don’t think it’s a design exception, rather FHWA doesn’t seem to care much nowadays. I’ve said before, as long as it meets general basic interstate standards, they’ll approve it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 21, 2019, 06:27:37 PM
Cloverleaves are an exception, because the loops are considered part of the same interchange.  FHWA does not like short weaving sections between two adjacent interchanges.
Again, NCDOT could apply for a design exemption should they desire Interstate designation.  But that design itself (based on that PDF), does not meet Interstate standard for ramp spacing between two interchanges.

Doesn't matter.  They'll do it anyway.
Not necessarily; it's not true that NCDOT wants every inch of every freeway to be an interstate (case in point: Green 40 in Winston-Salem). In this case it doesn't matter very much; the northbound side will have TO 40 shields that makes it feel like I-40 to drivers. The southbound side will probably be signed US 117 but it will still feel like I-40 to drivers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2019, 06:32:05 PM
Cloverleaves are an exception, because the loops are considered part of the same interchange.  FHWA does not like short weaving sections between two adjacent interchanges.
Again, NCDOT could apply for a design exemption should they desire Interstate designation.  But that design itself (based on that PDF), does not meet Interstate standard for ramp spacing between two interchanges.

Doesn't matter.  They'll do it anyway.
Not necessarily; it's not true that NCDOT wants every inch of every freeway to be an interstate (case in point: Green 40 in Winston-Salem). In this case it doesn't matter very much; the northbound side will have TO 40 shields that makes it feel like I-40 to drivers. The southbound side will probably be signed US 117 but it will still feel like I-40 to drivers.
It'll likely happen like I-26 does in Tennessee - the shields and designation will end a few miles before the actual freeway does. In this case, I-40 will end, but it will continue for a couple of miles south as an urban 6-lane freeway.

Regarding the interstate comment, while NCDOT has an apparent love for interstates, pretty much all of the recent additions are appropriate additions, have merit, etc. The urban beltways, interstates linking the inland cities to the coastal cities, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 22, 2019, 12:37:06 PM
The new I-95 Business/US-301 bridges over Dunn Road in Eastover are open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on October 22, 2019, 03:18:54 PM
The new I-95 Business/US-301 bridges over Dunn Road in Eastover are open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx)

Does this mean that Business 95/US 301 is finally fully opened up now for the first time in several years?  Seems like it took an awfully long time for the Cape Fear River bridge to get rebuilt, and then this one happened.  But I’m sure there were other nearby higher priorities due to hurricane/flood damage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 22, 2019, 04:55:00 PM
The new I-95 Business/US-301 bridges over Dunn Road in Eastover are open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-22-cumberland-county-route-reopens.aspx)
Incredible. They replaced two interstate-grade freeway overpasses with taller and wider spans in just one year, and only for $4.9 million.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 23, 2019, 09:38:33 PM
Split out the 11'8" bridge posts and merged them into the other thread about that bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 24, 2019, 04:00:57 PM
Rehab work on the NC-58 Emerald Isle bridge will begin on October 28. Work is expected to last through next spring.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-rehab-emerald-isle-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-rehab-emerald-isle-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2019, 09:22:02 AM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 25, 2019, 01:44:20 PM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)
Looks like another accelerated project thanks to Build NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on October 25, 2019, 02:29:27 PM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)

I would assume the Sunset Ave. interchange will added and the 64 interchange removed in anticipation of I-87, no?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 25, 2019, 02:48:17 PM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)

I would assume the Sunset Ave. interchange will added and the 64 interchange removed in anticipation of I-87, no?

No, the US-64 interchange will (and needs to) remain. The C/D lanes will be extended from the existing US-64 interchange to the new Sunset Ave interchange.

Here's the map:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 25, 2019, 03:55:47 PM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)

I would assume the Sunset Ave. interchange will added and the 64 interchange removed in anticipation of I-87, no?

No, the US-64 interchange will (and needs to) remain. The C/D lanes will be extended from the existing US-64 interchange to the new Sunset Ave interchange.

Here's the map:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf)
That would be a mistake if they were to remove it - I-87 or not.

It’s an important corridor to the east & Rocky Mount from I-95, and to the west & Raleigh from I-95.

If anything, they need to add flyovers from US-64 East to I-95 North, and US-64 West to I-95 South, especially if I-87 would increase traffic from the east & the existing major US-64 to I-95 North movement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 26, 2019, 09:07:02 PM
Took a drive down to Ahoskie & Murfreesboro today and noticed a few things -

A) Progress on the NC-11 / NC-11 interchange is going, the bridge structure is up but not completed. The ramps looked as if they were mostly graded (the interchange is a par-clo), and the northwest quadrant (the off-ramp loop and on-ramp leg) is being used for NC-11 traffic.
B) Progress on the Modlin Rd overpass over NC-11 is slightly behind the NC-11 interchange, the bridge approaches are completed though the bridge itself has not been constructed yet.
C) The speed limit on 7 miles of 4-lane US-13 / US-158 north of Winton, and 8.5 miles of 4-lane US-158 west of Winton has been increased from 55 mph to 60 mph sometime within the last year. Nice to see it increased as it's easily drivable at 65 mph, now they need to increase other 4-lane highways in eastern NC like US-17 south of Elizabeth City to 60 mph, and the future US-158 widening east of Elizabeth City starting next year once it's completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 27, 2019, 05:39:31 PM
For the new southwest bypass, I wish there was lighting at the interchanges because it's brand new and it will look really dark. Why don't we get lighting like this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9646004,-78.8659764,3a,75y,11.25h,114.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYudDDn_PWazeOtkVSJxMzA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 29, 2019, 11:52:38 AM
The eastbound US-70 Business loop onto I-40 West in Garner will permanently close on November 3.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-29-us-70-loop-i-40.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-29-us-70-loop-i-40.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 31, 2019, 10:18:25 AM
Sharon Church Road between NC-11 and Lafayette Road north of Kinston will close from November 4 until November 8 for bridge girder installation as part of the Harvey Parkway extension project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-31-lenoir-county-road-closure-bridge-girder.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-31-lenoir-county-road-closure-bridge-girder.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 31, 2019, 06:00:11 PM
The state treasurer wants Gov. Cooper to fire NCDOT Secretary Jim Trogdon.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article236864068.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article236864068.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 31, 2019, 08:20:33 PM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.

http://prntscr.com/pqw0zm

A picture at davenport farm road. Stop, STOP! Probably replacing the stop signs which is kinda stupid in my opinion, lol, haha.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 06:19:33 AM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.
Don’t see why Washington is a control city northbound... it isn’t even on NC-11’s routing.

Southbound, it’s likely Kinston and some small town they probably threw in there.

But this confirms something - the bypass will be signed NC-11 Bypass. The exit number in that picture - 119 - also corresponds with NC-11's mileage. Any overlapping portions with other routings?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 01, 2019, 07:18:57 AM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.
Don’t see why Washington is a control city northbound... it isn’t even on NC-11’s routing.

Southbound, it’s likely Kinston and some small town they probably threw in there.

But this confirms something - the bypass will be signed NC-11 Bypass. The exit number in that picture - 119 - also corresponds with NC-11's mileage. Any overlapping portions with other routings?
Southboud IS Kinston. Yeah. I'm not sure why Washington is even on there, maybe if a southeast bypass is built, they can replace "Washington" with "Bethel"

And i'm not sure if there's any overlapping portions with other routings.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 08:23:22 AM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.
Don’t see why Washington is a control city northbound... it isn’t even on NC-11’s routing.

It's probably to encourage traffic to follow it to US-264 and follow the freeway/expressway around the north side of Greenville. The alternative is to use NC-11's current routing (Memorial Drive) and then follow Greenville Blvd to US-264 east of the city. Greenville Blvd is one of the most congested parking lots roads in Greenville, so I can see why NCDOT would want to keep any and all thru traffic off of city streets as much as possible, even if it does add more mileage.

That said, I think Bethel should be added as a control city on that sign and Greenville moved onto the other sign alongside Snow Hill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 01, 2019, 09:37:13 AM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.

http://prntscr.com/pqw0zm

A picture at davenport farm road. Stop, STOP! Probably replacing the stop signs which is kinda stupid in my opinion, lol, haha.

Awesome pictures!  I think the STOP sign on the left looks a lot clearer than the one on the right, Pitt County has had the most auto accidents in NC for the last 5 or so years, so anything NCDOT can do to get roads safer is a plus in my book.

Looks like it the bypass should be open any day now!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 01, 2019, 11:36:55 AM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 11:48:32 AM
http://prntscr.com/pqw0u9

Overhead signs. Greenville, Washington, Snow Hill. I'm surprised that Goldsboro is not in there, lol.

http://prntscr.com/pqw0zm

A picture at davenport farm road. Stop, STOP! Probably replacing the stop signs which is kinda stupid in my opinion, lol, haha.

Awesome pictures!  I think the STOP sign on the left looks a lot clearer than the one on the right, Pitt County has had the most auto accidents in NC for the last 5 or so years, so anything NCDOT can do to get roads safer is a plus in my book.

Looks like it the bypass should be open any day now!
It’s projected for November 2019, so hopefully within a week or two.

It looks like a completed expressway based on the pictures.

I plan on heading down there along with Pollocksville once this bypass and the US-17 bypass open. Hopefully both this month.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 01, 2019, 12:59:01 PM
Is it known if NC 11 Bypass will extend around the existing portion of the bypass concurrent with US 264? It would seem silly for it not to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 01, 2019, 04:27:55 PM
Is it known if NC 11 Bypass will extend around the existing portion of the bypass concurrent with US 264? It would seem silly for it not to.
It would have to in order to maintain continuity.

It would stretch between each end of NC-11, overlapping US-264.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 01, 2019, 04:31:06 PM
I wish 11 wasn't called a "bypass". Probably because there's no businesses around there yet, and maybe when there's businesses, it would be called NC 11 and the old route that goes on memorial dr can be called "NC 11 Business" That was the first plan but they updated ideas. Even US 13 won't be put on the new highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 01, 2019, 05:55:29 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5719716,-77.4436034,3a,50.3y,228.88h,83.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3x4aS_rCoUYmTNhr2tkMOw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Over here, they should add a right turn lane or upgrade and put superstreets (or signalize) this intersection. It looks like they are just widening it and it will drop down to one lane and it will become two again. This is a very dangerous stretch, it needs major improvement. And I wish there was a 'median', not a center turn lane. Those suck.

Like come on dude, really...
http://prntscr.com/prbesz
http://prntscr.com/prbey2
http://prntscr.com/prbf1f

Where's the right turn lane?!
http://prntscr.com/prbfgl

It would be better if it was improved like US 17 near Washington.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 02, 2019, 06:31:05 PM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)

I would assume the Sunset Ave. interchange will added and the 64 interchange removed in anticipation of I-87, no?

No, the US-64 interchange will (and needs to) remain. The C/D lanes will be extended from the existing US-64 interchange to the new Sunset Ave interchange.

Here's the map:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf)
If anything, they need to add flyovers from US-64 East to I-95 North, and US-64 West to I-95 South, especially if I-87 would increase traffic from the east & the existing major US-64 to I-95 North movement.
http://prntscr.com/projb0

I was thinking this would do the trick.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 04:57:24 AM
A contract was awarded for several Nashville/Rocky Mount area projects, which includes building an I-95/Sunset Avenue interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-ncdot-awards-nash-county-projects.aspx)

I would assume the Sunset Ave. interchange will added and the 64 interchange removed in anticipation of I-87, no?

No, the US-64 interchange will (and needs to) remain. The C/D lanes will be extended from the existing US-64 interchange to the new Sunset Ave interchange.

Here's the map:

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Documents/i-95-carolina-coastal-us-64-map.pdf)
If anything, they need to add flyovers from US-64 East to I-95 North, and US-64 West to I-95 South, especially if I-87 would increase traffic from the east & the existing major US-64 to I-95 North movement.
http://prntscr.com/projb0

I was thinking this would do the trick.
Generally like that, except the I-95 SB -> US-64 EB flyover isn’t necessary.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 11:13:34 AM
Here's a conceptual design -

(https://i.ibb.co/FVBNPD3/I87I95.png)

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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 03, 2019, 01:47:31 PM
Nice concept design, sprjus!

_________________________________________________

Question - When i was driving to the southwest bypass interchange at US 264, It still says 264 west Wilson. I'm not sure why they haven't added "Raleigh" in there? On the other end (which is the Knightdale bypass) it says "Rocky Mount, Wilson, Greenville" but on the Southwest bypass side it just says "Wilson". Any reasons why Raleigh was not put on the overhead sign? I don't have pictures, but I will try to take a shot when i drive over there again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 03, 2019, 06:44:30 PM
Question - When i was driving to the southwest bypass interchange at US 264, It still says 264 west Wilson. I'm not sure why they haven't added "Raleigh" in there? On the other end (which is the Knightdale bypass) it says "Rocky Mount, Wilson, Greenville" but on the Southwest bypass side it just says "Wilson". Any reasons why Raleigh was not put on the overhead sign? I don't have pictures, but I will try to take a shot when i drive over there again.
Assuming you're referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6078692,-77.4374443,3a,75y,281.35h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smwkULT7TxPFZHXS64ulRPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

I don't know, and agree it should logically say "Wilson / Raleigh". The split of US-64 and US-264 at Zebulon outside Raleigh has "Wilson / Greenville" posted.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on November 04, 2019, 07:16:48 AM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)

Thank you for this!  I’ll be traveling from Columbia, SC to Lexington, KY next weekend.  Looks like I’m gonna stay on I-26 and US 23 most of the way!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 04, 2019, 09:38:56 PM
Also, the new southwest bypass US 264 interchange seriously needs lighting. Because when I drove on it today, it was PRETTY dark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on November 05, 2019, 06:01:04 AM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)

Thank you for this!  I’ll be traveling from Columbia, SC to Lexington, KY next weekend.  Looks like I’m gonna stay on I-26 and US 23 most of the way!


I'm glad my wife and I aren't travelling to her parents' house until Christmas this year.  We take exit 24, and I imagine traffic near the NC 209 interchange will already be backing up even though the closure will be 4 miles west.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2019, 08:11:19 AM
Question - When i was driving to the southwest bypass interchange at US 264, It still says 264 west Wilson. I'm not sure why they haven't added "Raleigh" in there? On the other end (which is the Knightdale bypass) it says "Rocky Mount, Wilson, Greenville" but on the Southwest bypass side it just says "Wilson". Any reasons why Raleigh was not put on the overhead sign? I don't have pictures, but I will try to take a shot when i drive over there again.
Assuming you're referring to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6078692,-77.4374443,3a,75y,281.35h,81.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smwkULT7TxPFZHXS64ulRPQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

I don't know, and agree it should logically say "Wilson / Raleigh". The split of US-64 and US-264 at Zebulon outside Raleigh has "Wilson / Greenville" posted.

I think Raleigh will probably be added once US-264 becomes I-587. That sign will have to be replaced anyway since there's no room there for both I-587 and US-264 shields.

The signs that never made sense to me are the ones approaching the I-795/US-264 split in Wilson. Alongside Goldsboro, Kenly is a control city for I-795 South. Anybody coming from west of I-95 that wants to go to Kenly will simply hop on I-95, not go down I-795 to US-301. Unless things have changed since I last lived near the area, there's nothing in Lucama that warrants that 'detour'.

Given that I-795's long-term purpose is to act as a shortcut to Wilmington, that city should take Kenly's place on the signs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2019, 08:28:05 AM
The signs that never made sense to me are the ones approaching the I-795/US-264 split in Wilson. Alongside Goldsboro, Kenly is a control city for I-795 South. Anybody coming from west of I-95 that wants to go to Kenly will simply hop on I-95, not go down I-795 to US-301. Unless things have changed since I last lived near the area, there's nothing in Lucama that warrants that 'detour'.

Given that I-795's long-term purpose is to act as a shortcut to Wilmington, that city should take Kenly's place on the signs.
Even if Kenly was on the I-795 route, it still shouldn't be signed - it's a small town of 1,000 population.

Using NCDOT's logic, why didn't they sign Fremont on I-795? Same population, and has an exit right to its front door from I-795.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 05, 2019, 08:32:05 AM
US-264
https://maps.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6791344,-77.9528275,0a,90y,106.67h,88.38t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stsN1yWTEQML6QQt6rhvnNw!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0&apn=com.google.android.apps.maps&afl=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6791344,-77.9528275,0a,90y,106.67h,88.38t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stsN1yWTEQML6QQt6rhvnNw!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0&ibi=com.google.Maps&ius=comgooglemapsurl&isi=585027354&ifl=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6791344,-77.9528275,0a,90y,106.67h,88.38t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1stsN1yWTEQML6QQt6rhvnNw!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0

And over here they should make a new sign that says I-587 south US-264 east (unless US-264 is going to get put back on the alternate route)

I-587
https://maps.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7344437,-78.0119324,0a,90y,149.81h,90.02t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDwk3fGamn0tfs4T-hB3uSA!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0&apn=com.google.android.apps.maps&afl=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7344437,-78.0119324,0a,90y,149.81h,90.02t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDwk3fGamn0tfs4T-hB3uSA!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0&ibi=com.google.Maps&ius=comgooglemapsurl&isi=585027354&ifl=https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7344437,-78.0119324,0a,90y,149.81h,90.02t/data%3D!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDwk3fGamn0tfs4T-hB3uSA!2e0?utm_source%3Dmstt_0

And for here Greenville or Goldsboro I-587 south and I-795 south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2019, 09:57:38 AM
The signs that never made sense to me are the ones approaching the I-795/US-264 split in Wilson. Alongside Goldsboro, Kenly is a control city for I-795 South. Anybody coming from west of I-95 that wants to go to Kenly will simply hop on I-95, not go down I-795 to US-301. Unless things have changed since I last lived near the area, there's nothing in Lucama that warrants that 'detour'.

Given that I-795's long-term purpose is to act as a shortcut to Wilmington, that city should take Kenly's place on the signs.
Even if Kenly was on the I-795 route, it still shouldn't be signed - it's a small town of 1,000 population.

Using NCDOT's logic, why didn't they sign Fremont on I-795? Same population, and has an exit right to its front door from I-795.

Every time I try to understand their logic regarding I-795, I get a headache. The 795/264 overlap still uses 264's mileposts and exit numbers and there are no roadside signs on I-795 showing how many miles it is to Goldsboro, Mount Olive*, Wilson, or Wilmington.

Another control city change on I-795 I'd like to see is at the US-301 interchange, heading northbound. I think Rocky Mount should be added as a control city with Raleigh.

(*I listed Mount Olive because it's a destination for trucks heading to the pickle plant.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 05, 2019, 10:26:45 AM
The 795/264 overlap still uses 264's mileposts and exit numbers

At least this will become a moot point when 264 eventually becomes I-587, a smaller number, but I doubt they were thinking that far ahead...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2019, 10:40:12 AM
The 795/264 overlap still uses 264's mileposts and exit numbers

At least this will become a moot point when 264 eventually becomes I-587, a smaller number, but I doubt they were thinking that far ahead...
I think even if US-264 wasn’t slated to become Interstate 587, maintaining its mileage / exit numbers would still be appropriate, since it’s the route that has continuity. The I-795 is only used on US-264 to connect drivers back with I-95, but in reality drivers use US-264 to connect with the north-south freeway that doesn’t directly connect with I-95, if that makes any sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2019, 12:02:50 PM
The 795/264 overlap still uses 264's mileposts and exit numbers

At least this will become a moot point when 264 eventually becomes I-587, a smaller number, but I doubt they were thinking that far ahead...

True, and they definitely weren't thinking far ahead. Greenville didn't begin pushing for US-264 to become an interstate until 2012. Wilson, on the other hand, doesn't really care one way or the other. As far as they're concerned, I-95 is good enough for them. The majority of recent growth in Wilson has been between Forest Hills Road and I-95, with more development planned and underway. The eastern and southeastern parts of the city is pretty much dead.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 05, 2019, 02:19:14 PM
As I stated in the 587 thread, when US 264 becomes Interstate 587, I think it should be just Interstate 587. Either move US 264 back to its original alignment between Zebulon and Greenville (with a western terminus at US 64/future Interstate 87's Exit 435/future 19), or just truncate US 264 to end at present day Exit 73. I believe that an Interstate 587/US 264 co-currency is overkill, and US 264's overlap with US 64 and Interstate 87 is extreme overkill. I have similar feelings about the continued existence of US 220 along the Interstate 73/74 corridors.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2019, 02:23:42 PM
I have similar feelings about the continued existence of US 220 along the Interstate 73/74 corridors.
It's even more confusing because north of Candor, the old road is Alt/Bus-220, and the freeway is I-73 / I-74 / US-220, but south of Candor, the old road becomes US-220, and the freeway is solely I-73 / I-74.

That practice used south of Candor should be extended all the way to Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 05, 2019, 03:47:50 PM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on November 05, 2019, 07:18:34 PM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 05, 2019, 07:23:07 PM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2019, 08:57:45 PM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 05, 2019, 09:19:19 PM
BREAKING NEWS: The Greenville SW Bypass will open on Thursday November 21st. 

Sarah Lentine, NCDOT Engineer was a guest on the morning radio show 'Talk of The Town" which is broadcast out of Greenville on 103.7 FM on Tuesday Morning and she stated that the bypass is slated to open on 11/21.  A ribbon cutting ceremony is already being planned, the ceremony time on 11/21 was not mentioned.

If you want to listen to the 10 min interview go to YouTube, then type in "Talk of the Town 10-5-2019 Hwy 11 Update" the interview starts at the 32:00 mark

Other Questions asked:

Will Greenville ever get a full circle beltway?

Nothing is currently being discussed by the NCDOT at this time in regards to completing a full 360 degree beltway around Greenville.  The main focus in Greenville now is with widening existing urban roads such as Evans St, Portertown Rd, Old Tar Rd and Fire Tower Rd.

Will there be any lights along the new bypass?

No

What about at the interchanges?

No, the bypass goes thru some very rural and light residential areas, where lights would not be good for area residents who live close to the bypass.






Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 05, 2019, 09:33:30 PM
Good to know it's opening soon, glad they made the November projection. Will have to head down there soon after it opens to check it out.

Hopefully the nearby US-17 Pollocksville Bypass opens within the next couple of weeks as well, along with all 4-lanes of US-17 between Maysville and Pollocksville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 05, 2019, 09:49:31 PM

Will there be any lights along the new bypass?

No

What about at the interchanges?

No, the bypass goes thru some very rural and light residential areas, where lights would not be good for area residents who live close to the bypass.
Maybe when development happens on there, finally they could start putting some lights up. If anything, just the Southwest bypass and us 264 interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 06, 2019, 07:55:04 AM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

It will be at this rate. Drove through there Sunday and the pavement markings still aren't down on the western end. The first section was supposed to open in September. They're averaging one mile per year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 06, 2019, 08:01:40 AM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

It will be at this rate. Drove through there Sunday and the pavement markings still aren't down on the western end. The first section was supposed to open in September. They're averaging one mile per year.
This was the part 226 west to Dixon?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 06, 2019, 08:43:07 AM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

It will be at this rate. Drove through there Sunday and the pavement markings still aren't down on the western end. The first section was supposed to open in September. They're averaging one mile per year.
This was the part 226 west to Dixon?

Yes. The new overhead signs are up on existing 74/Dixon eastbound, but covered. It looked like the final layer of pavement was down, but no lane markings on that end. I wouldn't count on it opening before spring.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 06, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(November%205,%202019)%20By%20County.pdf

It looks like Project R-2707D was in the list of suspended projects. So it looks like it might be a while.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 06, 2019, 09:40:44 AM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(November%205,%202019)%20By%20County.pdf

It looks like Project R-2707D was in the list of suspended projects. So it looks like it might be a while.

Both sections were delayed from 2021 to 2024. What's odd is that section D was suspended and section E wasn't. Section E is for upgrading existing 74 to freeway east of the bypass and isn't necessary to complete the bypass. Section D is the missing link to complete the byapss and also ~$5 million less than Section E.

The whole project stinks of dirty politics.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 06, 2019, 11:02:30 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-06-ocracoke-ferry-schedule-change-paving.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-06-ocracoke-ferry-schedule-change-paving.aspx)

Quote
​OCRACOKE — To facilitate the N.C. Department of Transportation’s paving operation on N.C. 12 on Ocracoke Island, the North Carolina Ferry System is making an adjustment to its Hatteras- Ocracoke Silver Lake schedule beginning Nov. 7.

Starting Nov. 7, the 10 p.m. departure from Hatteras to Ocracoke-Silver Lake and the 12:30 a.m. return trip will be suspended. The new schedule will be as follows:

-Hatteras to Ocracoke-Silver Lake: 6 a.m., 11:15 a.m., and 4:30 p.m.

-Ocracoke-Silver Lake to Hatteras: 8:45 a.m., 2:30 p.m., and 7:15 p.m.

The state Ferry Division is coordinating with Hyde County Schools to accommodate any evening athletic event travel.

No changes will be made to the Swan Quarter, Cedar Island, or Ocracoke-South Dock routes. The ferry schedule change will allow ferries and crews to be available for the staging of asphalt and concrete trucks used in the paving operation.

NCDOT is working to rebuild about 1,000 feet of N.C. 12 that was damaged during Hurricane Dorian in early September. NCDOT expects to reopen N.C. 12 to vehicular traffic on or before the Thanksgiving holiday. However, at this time Ocracoke remains open only to residents, non-resident property owners, and personnel approved by Hyde County Emergency Management.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 06, 2019, 03:31:44 PM
Rehab work on the NC-58 Emerald Isle bridge will begin on October 28. Work is expected to last through next spring.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-rehab-emerald-isle-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-10-25-rehab-emerald-isle-bridge.aspx)

The dates and times for the repairs have been updated.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-6-emerald-isle-bridge-rehab-dates.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-6-emerald-isle-bridge-rehab-dates.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 06, 2019, 04:53:08 PM
Hopefully the nearby US-17 Pollocksville Bypass opens within the next couple of weeks as well, along with all 4-lanes of US-17 between Maysville and Pollocksville.
Speaking of the devil...

Signs Being Installed on New Jones County Bypass (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-06-jones-county-bypass-signs.aspx)
Quote
POLLOCKSVILLE —  As work on a new Jones County bypass wraps up, crews will remove old signs and install new ones.

Between 7 a.m. Nov. 7 and 6 p.m. Nov. 8, the northbound lanes of the U.S. 17 Bypass will be closed from the intersection of U.S. 17, south of Rhems, to U.S. 70. The contractor will finish swapping out large overhead signage during the closure.

To get to U.S. 70 West from the U.S. 17 Business and U.S. 17 Bypass intersection, drivers should continue for about seven miles, cross under the U.S. 70 overpass, then turn left back onto U.S. 70 West.

Southbound traffic should take a left turn at the stoplight of U.S. 17 Business and the bypass and make a U-turn back towards New Bern.

​​​​​​​This construction is part of a 16.3-mile project which starts south of Belgrade and ties into the U.S. 17 bypass around New Bern. The project costs about $143.4 million and is expected to be complete later this month.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 06, 2019, 05:44:40 PM
A stretch of NC-180 will be closed this weekend due to bridge girder work on the US-74 Shelby Bypass.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-05-shelby-bridge-work.aspx)

Any word on when the bypass will be completed?

2027
I could've sworn it was 2070.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(November%205,%202019)%20By%20County.pdf

It looks like Project R-2707D was in the list of suspended projects. So it looks like it might be a while.

Both sections were delayed from 2021 to 2024. What's odd is that section D was suspended and section E wasn't. Section E is for upgrading existing 74 to freeway east of the bypass and isn't necessary to complete the bypass. Section D is the missing link to complete the byapss and also ~$5 million less than Section E.

The whole project stinks of dirty politics.
It does. Think about it: Section E will help speed business into Shelby, while Section D will speed traffic away from Shelby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 06, 2019, 06:41:48 PM
That's the point:. The money interests did not want this project, and minds of started to change when the Walmart and their distribution center.  I suspect the part west of 226 will open before Black Friday or the facilitate access to the WM Warehouse.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 06, 2019, 10:48:51 PM
Ugh! Why?
https://www.i95exitguide.com/roadnews/confusing-i-95-exit-in-north-carolina-may-be-completely-rebuilt/




Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 07, 2019, 01:59:24 AM
Ugh! Why?
https://www.i95exitguide.com/roadnews/confusing-i-95-exit-in-north-carolina-may-be-completely-rebuilt/

Oh good grief.  I'll admit that intersection is a bit confusing, but what they're wanting to do with it would be a roundabout nightmare.  That Travelers Inn would lose all front access, getting in and out of that BP would become a royal pain, that exit off roundabout A nearest to the A is to an obscure road that Google Streetview hasn't even bothered traversing, and through traffic from US 701 onto US 301 North would be going through all four roundabouts.  It makes me dizzy just thinking about it.

Just put 4-way intersections where they have the damned roundabouts and be done with it.

As an aside, Devil's Racetrack Road is a cool road name.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on November 07, 2019, 09:21:46 AM
Ugh! Why?
https://www.i95exitguide.com/roadnews/confusing-i-95-exit-in-north-carolina-may-be-completely-rebuilt/

Why? North Carolina, that's why!

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 07, 2019, 09:54:24 AM
Old news.  The News & Observer reported on it (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article226524665.html) after the public meeting back in February.

Quote from: News&Observer
Green said NCDOT tried to minimize the impact to businesses at the interchange, including the Travelers Inn and two gas stations, but the plans show a car repair shop and several homes would be taken.

NCDOT has the full PDF map online (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/I-5974-meeting-map.pdf).

Unfortunately, the map doesn't really show driveway locations, but I would imagine the gas stations would each receive a driveway on their respective sides of 701.  "Left-turning" drivers could use the roundabouts to access the opposite direction.

Regarding Finrod's complaint, "standard intersections" instead of roundabouts would not help the access to/from the gas stations and the Travelers Inn, and in fact would be more of a safety/crash issue.

At first blush, I'd have thought going with a single, larger-radius traffic circle on the southbound side would be a better option and would also cut down on the right-of-way requirements and need to take out 2 of the houses along 301.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 07, 2019, 12:38:45 PM
People that live in that area don't understand and can't handle roundabouts.  There's a much simpler roundabout near the Smithfield Outback and it causes no end of problems.  The only way this roundabout clusterf*ck will solve traffic problems is by making people avoid the area entirely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 07, 2019, 12:45:26 PM
More overnight closures on I-40 at Aviation Parkway in Morrisville.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-07-i-40-aviation-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-07-i-40-aviation-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 07, 2019, 04:23:23 PM
Due to the I-440 improvements project in Raleigh, the ramp from I-440 West to eastbound Wade Avenue will close for 2 years.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/201-11-07-beltline-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/201-11-07-beltline-ramp-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 07, 2019, 10:03:45 PM
People that live in that area don't understand and can't handle roundabouts.  There's a much simpler roundabout near the Smithfield Outback and it causes no end of problems.  The only way this roundabout clusterf*ck will solve traffic problems is by making people avoid the area entirely.
At least the one in Newton Grove seems reasonable. This contraption that NCDOT wants for Exit 90 is just straight-up looney!

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 08, 2019, 03:22:17 AM
People that live in that area don't understand and can't handle roundabouts.  There's a much simpler roundabout near the Smithfield Outback and it causes no end of problems.  The only way this roundabout clusterf*ck will solve traffic problems is by making people avoid the area entirely.
At least the one in Newton Grove seems reasonable. This contraption that NCDOT wants for Exit 90 is just straight-up looney!

The one in Newton Grove looks nice, has a substantial diameter, has its own road structure surrounding it (Circle Street) and avoids a six-way intersection where every road coming in is significant.  The Exit 90 plan has none of that going for it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 08, 2019, 08:30:39 AM
So you're basing your argument against roundabouts on driver stupidity?  They'll never learn unless/until they have experience, which they won't get if there aren't any.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MNHighwayMan on November 08, 2019, 09:06:18 AM
People that live in that area can't handle change, and neither can I.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 08, 2019, 12:46:17 PM
Whether you think rural North Carolina drivers can understand it or not, all NCDOT is really doing in this case is throwing an elaborate obstacle course in their way that keeps them from getting from point A to point B, for no reason.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on November 08, 2019, 01:34:55 PM
So you're basing your argument against roundabouts on driver stupidity?  They'll never learn unless/until they have experience, which they won't get if there aren't any.


Actually for myself, experience, Johnston county is half rural and half Raleigh metro, plus with the I-95 crowd, that mix is a interesting and volatile.  25 years of living here and seeing it first hand.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 08, 2019, 03:52:28 PM
NCDOT has received a BUILD grant to reconstruct 27 miles of I-95 in Robeson and Cumberland counties.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 08, 2019, 04:29:46 PM
NCDOT has received a BUILD grant to reconstruct 27 miles of I-95 in Robeson and Cumberland counties.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx)
Obviously $22.5 million won't fully fund widening 27 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes, but every bit certainly does help.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 08, 2019, 04:46:20 PM
The widening project northeast of Charlotte to bring I-85 from 4 to 8 lanes has now opened all 8 lanes, 4 each way. The project is still underway, but all lanes are now opened to traffic.

With the completion of this project, a fully at least 6-lane (8-lanes for majority of the distance) corridor exists between Charlotte and the I-40 / I-85 split northwest of Raleigh. A project to widen I-40 between Chapel Hill and I-85 from 4-lanes to 6-lanes is set to begin in the next couple of years (though is currently suspended due to state-wide funding issues so could be longer), and once that's completed, a fully at least 6-lane interstate highway corridor will be in place between Downtown Raleigh and Downtown Charlotte.

New Lanes Open Marking Milestone for I-85 Project in Rowan Co. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-i-85-rowan-county-lanes-open.aspx)
Quote
LANDIS — The Interstate 85 widening project in Rowan County reached a significant turning point Friday as the h​ighway opened to four lanes in each direction.

This marks substantial completion of the larger project to widen 8 miles of I-85 in Cabarrus and Rowan counties. The Cabarrus portion, spanning from north of N.C. 73 to north of Lane Street, was set in its final traffic pattern in December 2018.

The 5.9-mile Rowan County section between Moose Road and the old U.S. 29/U.S. 601/I-85 connector consisted of four lanes since 1968. Construction on doubling that capacity began in the fall of 2016. The work took place under traffic shifts, with most of the widening occurring in the median.

The $159 million project in Rowan County also included constructing a new interchange for Old Beatty Ford Road, interchange improvements at N.C. 152/I-85 (Exit 68) and the N.C. 152/U.S. 29/U.S. 601 connector, and several bridges. The Old Beatty Ford Road interchange is scheduled to open after a ribbon cutting Tuesday morning.

Though this project is now mostly complete, drivers should still expect temporary lane closures throughout the work zone. There is still a considerable amount of work left before the scheduled project closeout date of June 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 08, 2019, 05:37:52 PM
NCDOT has received a BUILD grant to reconstruct 27 miles of I-95 in Robeson and Cumberland counties.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx)
Obviously $22.5 million won't fully fund widening 27 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes, but every bit certainly does help.

Yep, especially now with NCDOT's funding problem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 08, 2019, 05:56:46 PM
Does anyone have reasons why the Southwest Bypass in Greenville is being called "NC 11 Bypass" instead of just "NC 11"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 09, 2019, 04:49:05 AM
People that live in that area can't handle change, and neither can I.

Fixed that for you.

I don't live in that area.  My fiancee has family that does, however, which means I'm in the area semi-frequently.  Take your attitude and shove it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 09, 2019, 04:57:15 AM
So you're basing your argument against roundabouts on driver stupidity?  They'll never learn unless/until they have experience, which they won't get if there aren't any.

I'm saying that until they can prove they can handle the ones they have, throwing even more at them, especially multiple in succession, isn't a sound idea.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 09, 2019, 06:58:29 AM
The US-301 improvement project in Rocky Mount is behind schedule.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/09/Road-project-lags-behind-schedule.html (http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/News/2019/11/09/Road-project-lags-behind-schedule.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 09, 2019, 09:26:51 AM
Does anyone have reasons why the Southwest Bypass in Greenville is being called "NC 11 Bypass" instead of just "NC 11"?
No different than US-17 Bypass around Elizabeth City and Hertford, US-70 Bypass around Goldsboro, US-74 Bypass around Monroe, US-64 Bypass around Rocky Mount, etc.

Then there’s others where the bypass is getting the mainline and the other one gets business, like US-64 around Asheboro and most of the freeway between Raleigh and Williamston (Rocky Mount’s segment randomly becomes US-64 Bypass), US-70 around Goldsboro, New Bern, and Havelock, US-17 around Edenton, Pollocksville, Maysville, and Jacksonville, etc.

It just seems to be random, but it’s nothing unusual, like US-301 Alt being the bypass around Starke, FL.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 09, 2019, 04:15:43 PM
When the I-795 extension from Goldsboro to I-40 is complete, should that be renumbered to I-495 or I-695? Because it won't be a spur anymore when it gets extended.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 09, 2019, 06:40:46 PM
So you're basing your argument against roundabouts on driver stupidity?  They'll never learn unless/until they have experience, which they won't get if there aren't any.

I'm saying that until they can prove they can handle the ones they have, throwing even more at them, especially multiple in succession, isn't a sound idea.
I'm not endorsing that particular cluster of roundabouts, which does seem over the top, but people who have to use roundabouts every day will figure them out pretty quickly. Yes they will keep complaining. It was the same thing with the first SPUIs. Used properly roundabouts smooth traffic flow and put an end to T-bone accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 09, 2019, 10:43:47 PM
NCDOT has received a BUILD grant to reconstruct 27 miles of I-95 in Robeson and Cumberland counties.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx)
Obviously $22.5 million won't fully fund widening 27 miles of interstate from 4 to 8 lanes, but every bit certainly does help.
They certainly need to raise the road higher over the Lumber River no matter what. I want to see the design, and the plan for detours during construction. Back in April I was caught in a traffic jam and detour through Lumberton back when NCDOT was working on that bridge over the railroad tracks, along with hundreds, if not thousands of other drivers. As a result, I was forced to stay at a motel that was further south than I wanted to be. I know they have to do work, but we always hope they can make it as inconvenient as possible for drivers who have to go around it.

I'm not endorsing that particular cluster of roundabouts, which does seem over the top, but people who have to use roundabouts every day will figure them out pretty quickly. Yes they will keep complaining. It was the same thing with the first SPUIs. Used properly roundabouts smooth traffic flow and put an end to T-bone accidents.
Whether we agree with the need for roundabouts here or not, I'm sure we can all agree that this proposal is absurd. BTW, NCDOT's reasoning behind it is to reduce confusion. Exactly what is it about this interchange that supposedly makes it so confusing? Perhaps I'm just guilty of looking at it through a roadgeek's perspective, than that of your average schmoe driver, but I just don't see it.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 10, 2019, 04:14:05 AM
Whether we agree with the need for roundabouts here or not, I'm sure we can all agree that this proposal is absurd. BTW, NCDOT's reasoning behind it is to reduce confusion. Exactly what is it about this interchange that supposedly makes it so confusing? Perhaps I'm just guilty of looking at it through a roadgeek's perspective, than that of your average schmoe driver, but I just don't see it.

I can see how the NW side (the Raleigh side) of the exit can be confusing.  US 301 North traffic has to merge in with the I-95 South offramp traffic at the same spot where that offramp traffic has to make a tight 160-degree left turn to access US 301 South.  I just think the roundabout cure is worse than the disease.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2019, 07:25:05 AM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)

Minor update.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-i-40-east-haywood-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-i-40-east-haywood-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 10, 2019, 06:05:59 PM
When the I-795 extension from Goldsboro to I-40 is complete, should that be renumbered to I-495 or I-695? Because it won't be a spur anymore when it gets extended.
True, but keeping the number people know generally outranks a change to conform to the rules. No one is looking to change I-540 into I-640 at Raleigh, although it now connects I-40 on the west to I-87 on the east.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 10, 2019, 11:39:07 PM
When the I-795 extension from Goldsboro to I-40 is complete, should that be renumbered to I-495 or I-695? Because it won't be a spur anymore when it gets extended.
True, but keeping the number people know generally outranks a change to conform to the rules. No one is looking to change I-540 into I-640 at Raleigh, although it now connects I-40 on the west to I-87 on the east.

Not only that, but the I-795 number for the extension was written into law by Congress when it became a High Priority Corridor and future interstate in 2015. NCDOT couldn't change it even if they wanted to.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm)

Quote
81.   United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 11, 2019, 01:58:41 AM
When the I-795 extension from Goldsboro to I-40 is complete, should that be renumbered to I-495 or I-695? Because it won't be a spur anymore when it gets extended.
True, but keeping the number people know generally outranks a change to conform to the rules. No one is looking to change I-540 into I-640 at Raleigh, although it now connects I-40 on the west to I-87 on the east.

Not only that, but the I-795 number for the extension was written into law by Congress when it became a High Priority Corridor and future interstate in 2015. NCDOT couldn't change it even if they wanted to.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm)

Quote
81.   United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.
It could get changed, through congressional action. Look at I-73 and I-74. They followed differently paths initially.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 12, 2019, 06:40:03 PM
Holly Springs decided it will maintain a portion of NC 55 between Holly Springs Road to NC 55 Bypass. As a result, NC 55 will replace NC 55 Bypass and the old alignment (that is outside the municipal boundary) will become SR 6107.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2019_10_03.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2019_10_03.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 13, 2019, 02:38:13 AM
When the I-795 extension from Goldsboro to I-40 is complete, should that be renumbered to I-495 or I-695? Because it won't be a spur anymore when it gets extended.
True, but keeping the number people know generally outranks a change to conform to the rules. No one is looking to change I-540 into I-640 at Raleigh, although it now connects I-40 on the west to I-87 on the east.

Not only that, but the I-795 number for the extension was written into law by Congress when it became a High Priority Corridor and future interstate in 2015. NCDOT couldn't change it even if they wanted to.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm)

Quote
81.   United States Route 117/Interstate Route 795 from United States Route 70 in Goldsboro, Wayne County, North Carolina, to Interstate Route 40 west of Faison, Sampson County, North Carolina.
It could get changed, through congressional action. Look at I-73 and I-74. They followed differently paths initially.

Originally it was just I-73; it was to multiplex with I-77 through western Virginia as I-74 was/is planned to do so currently; the section north of Greensboro to Roanoke wasn't in the original mix (the corridor would have multiplexed I-40 between Greensboro & Winston-Salem).   Roanoke interests prompted the "braided" route that is the corridor's legal definition; and some Ohio interests promoted (remember, this is circa 1995-96 or so) an Interstate corridor east of Cincinnati.  The two got tied together via WV/US 52 by King Coal Highway promoters for a true "Frankencorridor".  For better or worse, some roadway promotional efforts are hampered by a short attention span; Ohio, Michigan, and WV are no longer interested, and VA just doesn't want to prioritize their segment(s).  The selection of adjacent numbers only came about with the Ohio effort (74 added at that time as a functional eastern extension of the existing Midwest connector); however, it's (a) written into law and (b) signed in the field in NC, so changing it at this time would be difficult.  But it does illustrate the difference between changing the I-795 number (which has been around for over a decade) and the machinations that led to the 73/74 amalgam.   There, a 2nd parallel section of the corridor was added over much of its length, so a number had to be found for it (the literal interpretation of the HPC 18/20 authorizing language that led to I-69E/C/W in TX came about later;  the concept of 73E and 73W never seemed to materialize).  With I-795, the change would be to address the strictly technical issue of an odd-prefixed 3di terminating at another Interstate at both ends -- most observers, including DOT's who don't want to spend any more $$$$$ than necessary, would consider a renumbering effort just to satisfy a few literalists gratuitous -- and then there's the precedent of I-135, I-780, etc.   The thing's going to be designated I-795 for the foreseeable future. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 13, 2019, 07:42:25 AM
With I-795, the change would be to address the strictly technical issue of an odd-prefixed 3di terminating at another Interstate at both ends -- most observers, including DOT's who don't want to spend any more $$$$$ than necessary, would consider a renumbering effort just to satisfy a few literalists gratuitous -- and then there's the precedent of I-135, I-780, etc.   The thing's going to be designated I-795 for the foreseeable future.

Agreed. Plus, Wayne County (especially Mount Olive) was adamant that the extension would be I-795 and nothing else. Having grew up in Wayne County, you'd be surprised at how much political weight Mount Olive carries, not only with the county Board of Commissioners (which often results in the northern part of the county getting screwed when it comes to non-road related issues), but with the local Congressmen. The Board of Commissioners couldn't care less about anything north of Goldsboro except during elections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 13, 2019, 07:46:37 AM
^ I wasn’t suggesting I-795 be renamed - quite frankly I have no issues with the numbering - I’m just mentioning it is possible should there be a big push - which currently is nonexistent with the exception of a few people on this forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 13, 2019, 04:47:37 PM
Apparently, NCDOT time traveled a day forward and opened the new US-17 bypass. :spin:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx)


And Ocracoke is scheduled to reopen to visitors on November 22.

https://www.coastalreview.org/2019/11/ocracoke-to-reopen-to-visitors-nov-22/ (https://www.coastalreview.org/2019/11/ocracoke-to-reopen-to-visitors-nov-22/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 13, 2019, 06:38:04 PM
Apparently, NCDOT time traveled a day forward and opened the new US-17 bypass. :spin:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx)
And the release date is 11/15, which is Friday, AND includes quotes from tomorrow's speech.

They time-traveled into the future.

So this begs the question, is it open yet or does it not open until tomorrow?

---

"The U.S. 17 Bypass will create better connections between this corridor and the new U.S. 70 Bypass near New Bern,"

Since when is 40 years new? The 30-mile US-70 Bypass opened in 1978-79.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 13, 2019, 10:10:51 PM
According to the WITN news website,

the new US 17 bypass of Maysville and Pollacksville is set to open on Thursday 11/14 after an 11 AM Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

the article also mentions that the SW Greenville Bypass will open "sometime next week"

it was first reported by WTIB 103.7 FM last week that the bypass would open on November 21st, now NCDOT is saying that they are "still finalizing details for that highway opening"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 13, 2019, 10:34:05 PM
According to the WITN news website,

the new US 17 bypass of Maysville and Pollacksville is set to open on Thursday 11/14 after an 11 AM Ribbon Cutting Ceremony
Well technically, Maysville’s bypass is already 100% open to traffic, and has been for over a year, with all 4 lanes opening in the past few months.

With this opening of the remainder of the Pollocksville bypass, is the section between the two that was merely widened from 2 to 4 lanes - going to have all lanes open, or is still just 2 for the time being? Or have they already been open?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 14, 2019, 08:24:58 AM
Apparently, NCDOT time traveled a day forward and opened the new US-17 bypass. :spin:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-13-jones-county-bypass-opens.aspx)
And the release date is 11/15, which is Friday, AND includes quotes from tomorrow's speech.

They time-traveled into the future.

So this begs the question, is it open yet or does it not open until tomorrow?

It is and is not open. :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on November 14, 2019, 08:38:04 AM
According to the WITN news website,

the new US 17 bypass of Maysville and Pollacksville is set to open on Thursday 11/14 after an 11 AM Ribbon Cutting Ceremony

the article also mentions that the SW Greenville Bypass will open "sometime next week"

it was first reported by WTIB 103.7 FM last week that the bypass would open on November 21st, now NCDOT is saying that they are "still finalizing details for that highway opening"

White the Greenville SW Bypass isn't open yet, HwyUS264 Alt/Hwy US 13 has been widened from the bypass back to Frog Level Rd, which means they Hwy is now 4 laned for an additional 2-3 miles (although it has a quick lane drop off at Frog Level they need to redo that intersection). Now if they can 4 lane the hwy back to Farmville that would be nice. They definalty have the room to do it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 14, 2019, 01:01:02 PM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)

The closure will begin Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-40-west-closing-monday.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-40-west-closing-monday.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 14, 2019, 04:39:15 PM
Pollocksville bypass opens Thursday (https://www.gastongazette.com/news/20191114/pollocksville-bypass-opens-thursday)

Quote
As of 11 a.m. Thursday, drivers were able to access the US 17 bypass between Belgrade and New Bern.

Work on the bypass started in October, 2015, according to NCDOT spokeswoman Lauren Haviland. The road, she said, “will allow for a smoother, safer and less congested ride in Maysville and Pollocksville.”

Haviland said a $143 million contract was awarded for the work, and $140 million has been sent, with a few bills still to be paid.

The 16.3 mile highway starts south of Belgrade and ties into the. U.S. 17 bypass around New Bern.

The opening was celebrated at 11 a.m. with NCDOT officials and local members of the community speaking. Among those speaking were Secretary of Transportation Jim Trogdon and Pollocksville Mayor Jay Bender.

Haviland said one of the next projects will be work toward preparing US 70 into interstate by reworking a five mile stretch in James City, replacing intersections with exits and service roads for a distance of five miles.

This work is expected to begin in 2021 and to be completed in 2023.
The US-17 Pollocksville Bypass officially opened to traffic this morning, bypassing the 2-lane US-17 through Pollocksville. The 4-lane freeway is approximately 6 miles long and crosses the Trent River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 14, 2019, 07:55:15 PM
The ramp from I-440 West to eastbound Western Blvd in Raleigh will close tonight.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-440-west-eastbound-western-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-440-west-eastbound-western-ramp-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 14, 2019, 09:27:05 PM
http://prntscr.com/px5z37

When are they going to bring this part up to interstate standards? Because I'm sure it would be needed soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 14, 2019, 10:12:00 PM
http://prntscr.com/px5z37

When are they going to bring this part up to interstate standards? Because I'm sure it would be needed soon.
All it would involve is a basic shoulder widening, like is occurring on US-264 / I-587.

From a safety standpoint, agree it's needed, but it's not a major priority. It's not designated on any future interstate route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on November 14, 2019, 11:02:37 PM
http://prntscr.com/px5z37

When are they going to bring this part up to interstate standards? Because I'm sure it would be needed soon.
All it would involve is a basic shoulder widening, like is occurring on US-264 / I-587.

From a safety standpoint, agree it's needed, but it's not a major priority. It's not designated on any future interstate route.
Wait, I thought that section was part of US-264 / I-587.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 14, 2019, 11:08:14 PM
http://prntscr.com/px5z37

When are they going to bring this part up to interstate standards? Because I'm sure it would be needed soon.
All it would involve is a basic shoulder widening, like is occurring on US-264 / I-587.

From a safety standpoint, agree it's needed, but it's not a major priority. It's not designated on any future interstate route.
Wait, I thought that section was part of US-264 / I-587.
That section of the loop is US-264, but the I-587 designation ends once it reaches the SW Bypass interchange. It's not officially designated to travel onto the loop.

It wouldn't make sense either way though. The US-264 designation utilizes the loop to bypass Greenville for thru traffic headed east of the city, but the I-587 designation is specifically an interstate highway between Raleigh and Greenville, having it follow the existing freeway that dumps into a surface boulevard headed to Downtown makes logical sense.

The north-south route will dominantly be NC-11 Bypass, with a US-264 concurrency.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 05:34:03 AM
http://prntscr.com/px5z37

When are they going to bring this part up to interstate standards? Because I'm sure it would be needed soon.
All it would involve is a basic shoulder widening, like is occurring on US-264 / I-587.

From a safety standpoint, agree it's needed, but it's not a major priority. It's not designated on any future interstate route.
Wait, I thought that section was part of US-264 / I-587.
That section of the loop is US-264, but the I-587 designation ends once it reaches the SW Bypass interchange. It's not officially designated to travel onto the loop.

It wouldn't make sense either way though. The US-264 designation utilizes the loop to bypass Greenville for thru traffic headed east of the city, but the I-587 designation is specifically an interstate highway between Raleigh and Greenville, having it follow the existing freeway that dumps into a surface boulevard headed to Downtown makes logical sense.

The north-south route will dominantly be NC-11 Bypass, with a US-264 concurrency.

There was an attempt to make it part of a future interstate between Kinston and Bethel back in 2016, but it didn't get anywhere.

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s3378/BILLS-114s3378is.pdf (https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/s3378/BILLS-114s3378is.pdf)

The motive behind that brief push was to give the Global TransPark an interstate connection to Hampton Roads (particularly the Port of Virginia).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 06:55:24 AM
The General Assembly passed a bill regarding funding for NCDOT.

https://www.wral.com/bill-gives-dot-a-cash-infusion-lots-of-new-reporting-requirements/18766674/ (https://www.wral.com/bill-gives-dot-a-cash-infusion-lots-of-new-reporting-requirements/18766674/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 11:16:37 AM
Speed limits changing in the I-26 work zones.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-i-26-speed-limits-work-zones.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-i-26-speed-limits-work-zones.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 01:33:56 PM
Lanes on various interstates in the Triangle metro to close overnight next week for overhead sign maintenance.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-overhead-sign-maintenance.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-overhead-sign-maintenance.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 03:09:16 PM
Upcoming ramp closures due to the I-440 project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-beltline-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-beltline-ramp-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on November 15, 2019, 04:06:52 PM
Speaking of overhead signs, did anyone see that someone somehow climbed onto an overhead sign on 485 in Charlotte to paint graffiti?

https://www.wcnc.com/article/traffic/graffiti-on-i-485-sign-turning-heads-lanes-may-have-to-shut-down-for-removal/275-ec564eae-9024-449d-a982-2e7b1cc68853
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 15, 2019, 04:24:13 PM
What does the graffiti say? Phorm Humz? (Form Homes?) I can't believe someone would be stupid enough to spray-paint an overhead freeway sign, but I suppose "stupid is as stupid does" (Forrest Gump).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2019, 05:45:33 PM
Beginning Monday, there will be rolling roadblocks on NC-540, which will last until December 12. This is due to a project to extend Louis Stephens Drive under NC-540.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-turnpike-rolling-roadblocks.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-15-turnpike-rolling-roadblocks.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 15, 2019, 11:13:13 PM
I wonder when we will get a list of restored projects.  FWIW, there was an article in the Morganton newspaper where in a NCDot official claimed that they only needed to hold off 90 days in contract awards to restore their cash cushion and was planning to resume their normative contract letting pace in January.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 18, 2019, 10:10:47 AM
I know this isn't exactly road-related, but I figured I'd give the NC posters (or future residents like myself) a quick heads-up that starting December 1, vehicles 20 years old or older will be exempt from emissions inspections.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-twenty-year-rolling-emissions-inspections.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-twenty-year-rolling-emissions-inspections.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 18, 2019, 10:32:32 AM
Many new counties became exempt from smog checks last year.  I live in Burke and this past July, when I got my annual inspection, I did not need to smog. my 2008 lucerne
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on November 18, 2019, 11:33:59 AM
I know this isn't exactly road-related, but I figured I'd give the NC posters (or future residents like myself) a quick heads-up that starting December 1, vehicles 20 years old or older will be exempt from emissions inspections.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-twenty-year-rolling-emissions-inspections.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-twenty-year-rolling-emissions-inspections.aspx)

Also, new vehicles, 3 model years or less, are also exempt.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 18, 2019, 03:20:52 PM
NC-12 between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe is closed due to dune breaches and ocean overwash.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-18-nc-12-remains-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-18-nc-12-remains-closed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 18, 2019, 04:54:44 PM
Greenville Southwest Bypass to open Thursday.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2019, 07:34:00 AM
Greenville Southwest Bypass to open Thursday.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html)

The ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for 11:00am and the speed limit will be 70mph.

https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2019, 03:28:11 PM
NC-12 between Oregon Inlet and Rodanthe is closed due to dune breaches and ocean overwash.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-18-nc-12-remains-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-18-nc-12-remains-closed.aspx)

NCDOT is hoping to reopen it tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-hatteras-nc-12-reopen-wednesday.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-19-hatteras-nc-12-reopen-wednesday.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 20, 2019, 12:29:01 PM
For those curious if NC 68 will be truncated to the Wendover Avenue intersection when US 70 is rerouted, I contacted NCDOT and was told that it will not be. The two routes will be concurrent through High Point, with NC 68's routing not changing at all.

Most of us hate "useless" concurrencies, but this would no doubt reduce confusion for locals when their north-south route suddenly becomes a totally different east-west route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 20, 2019, 01:28:49 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting meeting tomorrow in Greensboro to discuss improvements to Franklin Blvd and Naco Road, which includes railroad grade-separations.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-20-franklin-boulevard-naco-road-rail-crossing-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-20-franklin-boulevard-naco-road-rail-crossing-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 20, 2019, 05:30:02 PM
Greenville Southwest Bypass to open Thursday.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html)

The ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for 11:00am and the speed limit will be 70mph.

https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html)

NCDOT time-traveled again. :-D

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-pitt-county-southwest-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-pitt-county-southwest-bypass-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 21, 2019, 09:54:12 AM
I-40 West through Pigeon River Gorge will close for up to 5 days this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-01-i-40-west-bridge-closed-gorge.aspx)

The closure will begin Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-40-west-closing-monday.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-14-i-40-west-closing-monday.aspx)

I-40 has been reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-i-40-reopens-haywood-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-i-40-reopens-haywood-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 21, 2019, 02:00:43 PM
Hyde County commissioners have voted to lift the Ocracoke visitor evacuation order on December 2.

https://www.wnct.com/local-news/hyde-county-commissioners-vote-to-lift-ocracoke-visitor-evacuation-order-on-dec-2/ (https://www.wnct.com/local-news/hyde-county-commissioners-vote-to-lift-ocracoke-visitor-evacuation-order-on-dec-2/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HTM Duke on November 21, 2019, 03:34:12 PM
While out clinching NC-125 as part of a broader trip to Florida, I found that it had been rerouted to the west of downtown Williamston, and now directly connects to Prison Camp Rd at US-64 ALT.  From what I could see, the old route has not been given a BUS designation.  No streetview yet, but the alignment is visible from satellite view.  (The old route is still shown as NC-125.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8522898,-77.0814142,7063m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 21, 2019, 04:36:03 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-lenoir-county-permanently-close.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-lenoir-county-permanently-close.aspx)

Quote
​KINSTON — The N.C. Department of Transportation continues construction on a major Lenoir County project that will extend a road, improving connectivity north of Kinston.

The work will require the closure of the northern end of Grainger Station Road where it meets existing N.C. 11, as part of the C.F. Harvey Parkway Extension project.

Starting at 8 a.m., Nov. 25, NCDOT will permanently close the northern end of Grainger Station Road where it ties into N.C. 11 near Morris Drive as crews construct the four-lane freeway. This is the area where the existing northbound lanes of N.C. 11 will be closed, and traffic will be placed on the new alignment of N.C. 11. There will be a turnaround constructed at this location on Grainger Station Road and traffic will have access to N.C. 11 via Grainger Station Road to Sharon Church Road.

The C.F. Harvey Parkway extension will be a four-lane, median-divided freeway with full-control access. By extending C.F. Harvey Parkway by 5.8 miles, connectivity will improve in northern Kinston between U.S. 70, N.C. 58 and N.C. 11. The $73.5 million project is expected to be substantially complete in 2021, with vegetation work finishing in 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 21, 2019, 11:50:21 PM
According to the Fayetteville Observer Newspaper, the next leg of the Fayetteville Outer Loop from the All-American Freeway to Cliffdale Road is scheduled to open to traffic on November 26th (Tuesday) after a 1:30 PM ribbon cutting ceremony.  The entire loop project is scheduled for completion in 2024.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 22, 2019, 11:38:41 AM
While out clinching NC-125 as part of a broader trip to Florida, I found that it had been rerouted to the west of downtown Williamston, and now directly connects to Prison Camp Rd at US-64 ALT.  From what I could see, the old route has not been given a BUS designation.  No streetview yet, but the alignment is visible from satellite view.  (The old route is still shown as NC-125.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8522898,-77.0814142,7063m/data=!3m1!1e3


Google shows 125 extended down Prison Camp to US 64 proper.  Is that correct?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on November 22, 2019, 12:02:52 PM
While out clinching NC-125 as part of a broader trip to Florida, I found that it had been rerouted to the west of downtown Williamston, and now directly connects to Prison Camp Rd at US-64 ALT.  From what I could see, the old route has not been given a BUS designation.  No streetview yet, but the alignment is visible from satellite view.  (The old route is still shown as NC-125.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8522898,-77.0814142,7063m/data=!3m1!1e3


Google shows 125 extended down Prison Camp to US 64 proper.  Is that correct?


125 has used Prison Camp for about 20 years... (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/nc125.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 22, 2019, 02:23:48 PM
While out clinching NC-125 as part of a broader trip to Florida, I found that it had been rerouted to the west of downtown Williamston, and now directly connects to Prison Camp Rd at US-64 ALT.  From what I could see, the old route has not been given a BUS designation.  No streetview yet, but the alignment is visible from satellite view.  (The old route is still shown as NC-125.)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8522898,-77.0814142,7063m/data=!3m1!1e3


Google shows 125 extended down Prison Camp to US 64 proper.  Is that correct?


125 has used Prison Camp for about 20 years... (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/nc125.html)

It actually ends at the Bob Martin Ag Center just south of US 64 and has back to at least 1996
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 22, 2019, 07:52:06 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to convert the I-40/Airport Blvd interchange in Wake County to a DDI.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-22-i-40-airport-blvd-let.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-22-i-40-airport-blvd-let.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: oscar on November 22, 2019, 08:15:53 PM
Greenville Southwest Bypass to open Thursday.

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html (https://www.witn.com/content/news/Southwest-Greenville-Bypass-to-open-Thursday-565088892.html)

The ribbon-cutting ceremony is scheduled for 11:00am and the speed limit will be 70mph.

https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html (https://www.reflector.com/news/county-board-oks-bypass-zoning-regulations/article_6c478f6e-f287-5d77-9c61-82eb5024e782.html)

NCDOT time-traveled again. :-D

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-pitt-county-southwest-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-21-pitt-county-southwest-bypass-opens.aspx)

I drove the new road earlier today, so it's definitely open. The new SW quadrant of the bypass is signed as Bypass NC 11. Also, the already-opened NW quadrant, which had been previously signed as part of US 264, now is also signed as part of Bypass NC 11. (At least southbound south of NC 33 -- I didn't drive the bypass northbound, or the segment north of NC 33.)

I also turned around after reaching the south end of the new bypass segment, north on NC 11 over the old alignment to NC 102, from where I turned back south toward Kinston to resume my travels. Overhead signs south of the bypass junction, and reassurance markers between that junction and NC 102, indicate the old route remains vanilla NC 11, rather than becoming a business route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 23, 2019, 12:20:18 PM
Has anyone documented the exit numbering? I'm interested to see how they handle numbering in both directions at US 264, and also which end of the Monroe Expressway they mimicked for the southern end, i.e. if NC 11 is signed as the exit or if the bypass is signed as a left exit from NC 11.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 23, 2019, 01:22:49 PM
A video was uploaded on YouTube of driving the entire length of the new bypass.


The signage on the southern end is actually similar to the Monroe Expressway in the sense that the APL signage has the bypass being a left movement and the old NC-11 being a straight movement. However, it does sign that straight movement as an exit, and still gives continuity to the bypass despite the weird arrow signage.

Similar to I-85 / I-40 outside Greensboro on the east side.

(https://i.ibb.co/jRqxcbL/Greenville-SWBVPExit112.png)

Here's the exit list from south to north -

Exit 112 - NC-11 North - Winterville
Exit 113 - NC-102 - Ayden
Exit 118 - Winterville
Exit 119 - US-13 / US-264 Alt - Snow Hill
Exit 123A-B - US-264 West - Greenville Downtown / Wilson

The speed limit is posted at 70 mph on the entire length of the bypass, and the control cities for northbound are Greenville and Washington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 23, 2019, 01:45:05 PM
A video was uploaded on YouTube of driving the entire length of the new bypass.


Thanks for this, I didn't find that video while searching. The signage is basically what I was expecting. I presume southbound is signed for Kinston and that the existing exit numbers on the northwest bypass section were left as-is?

I like that they direct Greenville-bound traffic onto the bypass to get around Winterville and enter on Stantonsburg Road. This makes perfect sense despite being rather unusual, just because of the geography of the area and existing roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 23, 2019, 01:54:52 PM
I presume southbound is signed for Kinston and that the existing exit numbers on the northwest bypass section were left as-is?
I'd assume so, but I cannot confirm. There's a poster on here who lives in the area that may be able to confirm sooner than I would. I plan on heading down there eventually to clinch both the Greenville SW Bypass and the US-17 Pollocksville / Maysville bypasses, but that's not for at least a few weeks when I get the time.

I like that they direct Greenville-bound traffic onto the bypass to get around Winterville and enter on Stantonsburg Road. This makes perfect sense despite being rather unusual, just because of the geography of the area and existing roads.
It makes sense IMO, there's about 12 miles of 70 mph freeway, and 2 miles of arterial Stantonsburg Rd between south of Ayden and Downtown, as opposed to 11 miles of NC-11 arterial. It's only 3 miles added, and at 70 mph as opposed to 45 mph and a dozen or more traffic lights, it's easily faster.

Contrary to the Monroe Expressway, where the bypass / old road split on the northern end signs the old road control city as "Monroe" when in reality it's quicker to take the bypass to US-601, then US-601 into town.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 25, 2019, 08:32:24 PM
Drove on the new Southwest Bypass, it's really nice! It's pretty dark, but it's nice. The reason why I'm saying it's dark because i drove on it around 6:30. Now it just needs development around the bypass itself. It's a lot faster to get to the hospital and ECU!

I'm sure to the people that live on the east side of Greenville would have to use the original NC 11 or loop around NC 11 and US 264 until the Southeast Bypass gets built.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 26, 2019, 06:30:25 AM
Drove on the new Southwest Bypass, it's really nice! It's pretty dark, but it's nice. The reason why I'm saying it's dark because i drove on it around 6:30. Now it just needs development around the bypass itself. It's a lot faster to get to the hospital and ECU!

I'm sure to the people that live on the east side of Greenville would have to use the original NC 11 or loop around NC 11 and US 264 until the Southeast Bypass gets built.
Since it still remains unanswered on here, do you happen to know these two things?

- What is the southbound control city
- Have they changed the exit numbers to NC-11’s mileage on the US-264 portion?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 26, 2019, 10:26:22 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-27-lenoir-county-construction-road-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-27-lenoir-county-construction-road-closure.aspx)

Quote
KINSTON — A section of a Lenoir County road will be closed for a few days in early December while N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews continue construction on the C.F. Harvey Parkway Extension project.

Between 7 a.m. Dec. 2 and 5 p.m. Dec. 6, Hugo Road is set to close between Elmore Farm and Humphrey roads. During the closure, contractors will install steel bridge girders over the road north of Kinston.

Traffic will be detoured onto Elmore Farms Road, Wallace Family Road, Tilghman Mill Road and N.C. 58.

Drivers should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and are urged to use caution when traveling around the construction.

By extending C.F Harvey Parkway by 5.8 miles, connectivity will improve in northern Kinston between U.S. 70, N.C. 58 and N.C. 11. The $73.5 million project is expected to be substantially complete in 2021, with vegetation work finishing in 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 26, 2019, 12:38:48 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen NC-69 in Clay County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 26, 2019, 02:06:16 PM
Drove on the new Southwest Bypass, it's really nice! It's pretty dark, but it's nice. The reason why I'm saying it's dark because i drove on it around 6:30. Now it just needs development around the bypass itself. It's a lot faster to get to the hospital and ECU!

I'm sure to the people that live on the east side of Greenville would have to use the original NC 11 or loop around NC 11 and US 264 until the Southeast Bypass gets built.
Since it still remains unanswered on here, do you happen to know these two things?

- What is the southbound control city
- Have they changed the exit numbers to NC-11’s mileage on the US-264 portion?
1. Ayden / Kinston

2. No?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 26, 2019, 06:05:27 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen NC-69 in Clay County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx)
NC 69 will be 4-lane divided straight into Hayesville. Great. But what about the connecting road(s) in Georgia?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 26, 2019, 06:09:42 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen NC-69 in Clay County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx)
NC 69 will be 4-lane divided straight into Hayesville. Great. But what about the connecting road(s) in Georgia?
Reminds me of US-501 at the Virginia / North Carolina border.

Virginia's 4-lane section just suddenly ends and transitions to two-lanes with a stub for a future extension

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5429776,-78.9001039,476m/data=!3m1!1e3

NCDOT is finally catching up and has been building some 4-lane sections south of there, but not to the border yet.



US-17 between Virginia / North Carolina was similar for a while too. North Carolina's 4-lane divided highway transitioned into the narrow 2-lane roadway in Virginia at the border between the 80s and 2005 when VDOT finally relocated US-17 onto a new alignment limited-access 4-lane divided highway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5492451,-76.3784613,3592m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on November 26, 2019, 06:26:50 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen NC-69 in Clay County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-nc-69-widening-clay-county.aspx)
NC 69 will be 4-lane divided straight into Hayesville. Great. But what about the connecting road(s) in Georgia?
Reminds me of US-501 at the Virginia / North Carolina border.

Virginia's 4-lane section just suddenly ends and transitions to two-lanes with a stub for a future extension

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5429776,-78.9001039,476m/data=!3m1!1e3

NCDOT is finally catching up and has been building some 4-lane sections south of there, but not to the border yet.



US-17 between Virginia / North Carolina was similar for a while too. North Carolina's 4-lane divided highway transitioned into the narrow 2-lane roadway in Virginia at the border between the 80s and 2005 when VDOT finally relocated US-17 onto a new alignment limited-access 4-lane divided highway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5492451,-76.3784613,3592m/data=!3m1!1e3
US 385 at the South Dakota / Nebraska border is the same way: four lanes in SD, two lanes in NE. However, I don't think Nebraska has started upgrading their side yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on November 26, 2019, 06:36:46 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ugbz2c9.png)

I think I caught Google Maps mid-update on the NC 11 bypass. The lines further south are white, only show up at full zoom, and sit on top of each other in a few places. They also end a few feet short of the NC 11 interchange.

EDIT: Interesting. The white lines are directionally marked, but the yellow ones aren't.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 26, 2019, 06:50:21 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/ugbz2c9.png)

I think I caught Google Maps mid-update on the NC 11 bypass. The lines further south are white, only show up at full zoom, and sit on top of each other in a few places. They also end a few feet short of the NC 11 interchange.

EDIT: Interesting. The white lines are directionally marked, but the yellow ones aren't.
I'd give it a week, the system takes a while. I'm beyond surprised they actually marked it appropriately as a "freeway facility" as opposed to arterial as they like to do with newer freeway bypasses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 26, 2019, 07:18:36 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0400664,-77.2195808,14.66z

Also, when looking at this, google maps shows that this is an unknown freeway. There's nothing marked on it and if you zoom out all the way to US 70, it shows that it's an expressway design and not freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on November 27, 2019, 12:32:27 PM
I'd say it's fixed now, since the whole mainline is yellow and all the exits are marked, but now there's a new problem.

They put I-587 shields on the southbound mainline through the US-264 interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on November 27, 2019, 12:33:39 PM
I'm wondering how long it'll take NCDOT to move US 13 onto the bypass, and will they retain existing US 13 as Business 13 when they do.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 27, 2019, 01:11:05 PM
For those interested, NCDOT will be posting a weekly "Cash Watch" report every Friday due to a new law the General Assembly recently passed.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-27-weekly-cash-watch-report.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-27-weekly-cash-watch-report.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 28, 2019, 12:48:33 PM
I'm wondering how long it'll take NCDOT to move US 13 onto the bypass, and will they retain existing US 13 as Business 13 when they do.
Doubtful. If they were planning on doing it they would have done it by now or left a space on the signs for US 13. It will just be called NC 11 bypass and US 264.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 29, 2019, 11:31:41 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6639496,-77.9555017,3a,41.9y,358.05h,98.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3c8eAn-H1KDU2BzKlh51LA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

Over here they marked this sign very badly. It should say "Wilson / Greenville". Not Kenly.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here the southwest bypass is on the maps now but I think it still needs some editing.

1. Make the western bypass say NC 11 Bypass

2. Fix the southeast ramp that goes to "Greenville DOWNTOWN"

3. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5467304,-77.4649114,15.46z/data=!5m1!1e1

Never seen a freeway ramp like that! They are normally orange, not white.

4. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4757218,-77.4442008,15.96z/data=!5m1!1e1

This one too.

I'm really waiting for updated imagery!

_____________________________________

Info about the new SW bypass

Downtown (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.4458113,-77.4307509/35.6111537,-77.3730271/@35.59247,-77.4740068,11.46z/data=!4m3!4m2!3e0!5i1!5m1!1e1)

you save 1 minute, but you add 3 miles but it's no biggie at all!

Airport (https://www.google.com/maps/dir/35.4458113,-77.4307509/35.6331146,-77.3797457/@35.5361262,-77.4749754,11.33z/data=!4m2!4m1!3e0!5m1!1e1)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 29, 2019, 01:54:14 PM
An informational meeting is being held on December 5 in Rodanthe to discuss the ongoing "jug handle" bridge project there.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-rodanthe-bridge-informational-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-26-rodanthe-bridge-informational-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 10:43:55 AM
Just got a hold of the signing plans for the Greenville Southwest Bypass project (R-2250) from a public records request. In addition to what we already saw from the northbound drive video that was already posted, I can now confirm a few things:


(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 02, 2019, 04:03:01 PM
Latest update on Ocracoke Island, regarding the ferry system and NC-12.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-02-ocracoke-reopens-ferry-schedules.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-02-ocracoke-reopens-ferry-schedules.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 02, 2019, 07:55:02 PM
Just got a hold of the signing plans for the Greenville Southwest Bypass project (R-2250) from a public records request. In addition to what we already saw from the northbound drive video that was already posted, I can now confirm a few things:

  • Exit 123A-B only exists northbound on the bypass. US 264's existing Exit 73A-B still exists on eastbound 264 and westbound 264/southbound bypass. The exits from westbound Stantonsburg Road are still unnumbered.
  • The southbound bypass is signed for Kinston starting from the 264 cloverleaf. Though NC 11 Bypass trailblazers were posted along the northwest bypass, including some BGS replacements at the northern US 13/NC 11 junction, Kinston isn't signed there, nor is Bethel from anywhere except the northern 13/11 junction.
  • The planned signs for westbound 264 leave no room for I-587 shields, but the plans explicitly mention eventually replacing the signs entirely to feature I-587. This also confirms again that I-587 will end at the cloverleaf and not go onto the bypass, which we already knew. Most notably, though, it seems I-587 will be signed north-south, with northbound pointing west toward Zebulon, shown below. This seems... questionable.

(https://i.imgur.com/xhi970D.png)
And yet Google Maps signed I-587 through the cloverleaf on the southbound US 264 Bypass mainline. Also, the other side (still signed US 264) is mapped out as an at-grade intersection in the middle of the cloverleaf, while the I-587-marked side passes over it. Looks like they marked the whole thing as an expressway instead of a freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 02, 2019, 08:30:34 PM
Another thing I found in the signing plans: they indicate the internal name of the northwest bypass section as "US 264/US 13/By-Pass NC 11," indicating that at one point, US 13 itself was planned to be rerouted onto the bypass when the southwest section opened. Obviously this didn't happen. Interesting that this seemed to indicate the creation of NC 11 Bypass but not US 13 Bypass. Wouldn't be the first time they couldn't make up their mind which method of bypassing a route to choose and just did both on the same project. (See the Sanford Bypass with US 421 proper rerouted onto it and NC 87 Bypass created for it.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 04, 2019, 06:14:32 PM
NC-12 on Ocracoke Island will reopen to all traffic tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-04-nc12-reopens-ocracoke.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-04-nc12-reopens-ocracoke.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 04, 2019, 08:26:12 PM
Another thing I found in the signing plans: they indicate the internal name of the northwest bypass section as "US 264/US 13/By-Pass NC 11," indicating that at one point, US 13 itself was planned to be rerouted onto the bypass when the southwest section opened. Obviously this didn't happen. Interesting that this seemed to indicate the creation of NC 11 Bypass but not US 13 Bypass. Wouldn't be the first time they couldn't make up their mind which method of bypassing a route to choose and just did both on the same project. (See the Sanford Bypass with US 421 proper rerouted onto it and NC 87 Bypass created for it.)
They probably didn't put US 13 on it because they didn't want the bypass to have too many shields so it can cause confusion.

Also, they are probably trying to move many US highways off freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 04, 2019, 09:41:21 PM
Just an FYI,  Google Maps is now showing the recently completed leg of NC 295 from the All-American Freeway to Cliffdale Road in Fayetteville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 04, 2019, 10:20:14 PM
The Greensboro News-Record is reporting that the next segment of the Greensboro Urban Loop (Battleground to Lawndale) is going to open to traffic on December 31st.  Lawndale to Elm should be done by the end of 2020 and the final leg (Elm to US 29) should be complete by the end of 2021.

Still no word on when the first segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway will open.  I read back in September, it would be open by Dec 31st, but I have read nothing further since then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 04, 2019, 10:23:45 PM
Also, they are probably trying to move many US highways off freeways.

Isn't it mostly where Interstates are involved? NC 11 is obviously only a state route, though, so this may just be due to their efforts to upgrade specifically the NC 11 corridor, with US 13 being an afterthought. Is Greenville (or whichever town it was) still pushing for an Interstate along NC 11?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 04, 2019, 10:57:18 PM
Also, they are probably trying to move many US highways off freeways.

Isn't it mostly where Interstates are involved? NC 11 is obviously only a state route, though, so this may just be due to their efforts to upgrade specifically the NC 11 corridor, with US 13 being an afterthought. Is Greenville (or whichever town it was) still pushing for an Interstate along NC 11?
I'm sure they are. If the NC 11 corridor is upgraded, from US 64 to US 70, then they can put an interstate there.
an I-x87 (I-287 or I-487 would work).

http://www.malmeroads.net/ncfutints/ncfutintp.html
Scroll down to where it says I-287 and you can see what i'm talking about.

EDIT: It says from US 64 to US 264, but I think they should go all the way to US 70. It would be reasonable and the interstate wouldn't be as short.

But in my proposals, I want that to be called I-97 from Bethel to Jacksonville :)

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_0802A_Report_2010.pdf

This would be needed because the CF harvey parkway has the eastern part to Greenville with a loop and not a flyover, so an interstate there wouldn't be feasible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 05, 2019, 04:10:23 AM
Also, they are probably trying to move many US highways off freeways.

Isn't it mostly where Interstates are involved? NC 11 is obviously only a state route, though, so this may just be due to their efforts to upgrade specifically the NC 11 corridor, with US 13 being an afterthought. Is Greenville (or whichever town it was) still pushing for an Interstate along NC 11?
There had been talks previously of upgrading NC-11 between the CF Harvey Pkwy in Kinston extension and US-64 / I-87 in order to provide a direct interstate connection between the Global TransPark, Greenville, and Hampton Roads / Port of Virginia, but I don’t think Greenville was pushing for that as much as they were getting US-264 designated as an interstate highway. In the future though, as I-87 gets built out between Raleigh and Hampton Roads, there may be more desire in the future. Right now, a freeway along NC-11 would simply lead back to more 4-lane divided highway to Hampton Roads, so it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Once that US-17 leg is an interstate though, the proximity of Greenville and Kinston to it will likely result in a larger desire to connect directly to it as a new north-south corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 05, 2019, 06:28:29 AM
Also, they are probably trying to move many US highways off freeways.

Isn't it mostly where Interstates are involved? NC 11 is obviously only a state route, though, so this may just be due to their efforts to upgrade specifically the NC 11 corridor, with US 13 being an afterthought. Is Greenville (or whichever town it was) still pushing for an Interstate along NC 11?

Who knows. There's been no to talk of it since the Eastern NC Gateway Act didn't get anywhere in Congress shortly before the 2016 elections. The mayors of Greenville and Kinston that pushed for it are no longer in office and as far as I know, there's been no mention of it by their successors.

I-42 and I-587 seems to be taking priority...as they should.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 05, 2019, 09:19:51 PM
Just an FYI,  Google Maps is now showing the recently completed leg of NC 295 from the All-American Freeway to Cliffdale Road in Fayetteville.
Speaking of which, I believe the southern terminus will be at Exit 38 on I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 05, 2019, 09:24:50 PM
http://prntscr.com/q6wcor

There are missing ramps and a whole freeway. This is incomplete, it's not showing a complete connection. But, I'm sure it would be updated.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 05:43:35 AM
It's all messed up. I'd give it a week for at least the lines to be marked properly. The exit numbers, well that may be months or never knowing Google. I'm shocked it's already designated NC-295 knowing that they lack the ability to properly mark other roads with anything.

The area around Exit 18 (Canopy Ln) is all messed up on Google, but it's semi decent - just need to realign a couple roads and delete a couple old markers.

They finally added (most of) the exit numbers on the Greenville Southwest Bypass, but are still missing a couple at either end, the bypass is still not marked as NC-11, and the lone I-587 marker still remains.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 06, 2019, 06:19:08 AM
It's all messed up. I'd give it a week for at least the lines to be marked properly. The exit numbers, well that may be months or never knowing Google. I'm shocked it's already designated NC-295 knowing that they lack the ability to properly mark other roads with anything.
Well, I snapped some pictures of where the construction for the Future I-295 is at, and the mile marker said 38. So we won't need to worry about knowing that.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 06, 2019, 07:33:42 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.607736,-77.4386758,18z

This part is showing at-grade and not grade separated for northbound traffic. And why are the ramps white and not orange?

They just need to sign it "NC 11 bypass" and we are good.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 06, 2019, 07:34:10 AM
It's all messed up. I'd give it a week for at least the lines to be marked properly. The exit numbers, well that may be months or never knowing Google. I'm shocked it's already designated NC-295 knowing that they lack the ability to properly mark other roads with anything.

The area around Exit 18 (Canopy Ln) is all messed up on Google, but it's semi decent - just need to realign a couple roads and delete a couple old markers.

They finally added (most of) the exit numbers on the Greenville Southwest Bypass, but are still missing a couple at either end, the bypass is still not marked as NC-11, and the lone I-587 marker still remains.

They still haven't changed the "US 74 Bypass Rd" name on the Monroe Expressway to "US 74 Bypass" to get the shield to render despite my reporting it multiple times, so don't hold your breath on NC 11 Bypass...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 06, 2019, 07:37:24 AM
It's all messed up. I'd give it a week for at least the lines to be marked properly. The exit numbers, well that may be months or never knowing Google. I'm shocked it's already designated NC-295 knowing that they lack the ability to properly mark other roads with anything.

The area around Exit 18 (Canopy Ln) is all messed up on Google, but it's semi decent - just need to realign a couple roads and delete a couple old markers.

They finally added (most of) the exit numbers on the Greenville Southwest Bypass, but are still missing a couple at either end, the bypass is still not marked as NC-11, and the lone I-587 marker still remains.

They still haven't changed the "US 74 Bypass Rd" name on the Monroe Expressway to "US 74 Bypass" to get the shield to render despite my reporting it multiple times, so don't hold your breath on NC 11 Bypass...
I would just call it "Monroe Expy" It's technically a bypass, but it's not that far and "US 74 Bypass Rd" is no biggie for us i think. Maybe we should make that "Hwy"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 06, 2019, 01:22:47 PM
and the lone I-587 marker still remains.
It's on the wrong mainline too, and its northbound complement is marked with two at-grade intersections in the center of the cloverleaf. Somehow, marking it as I-587 actually made it show up as the right kind of road, while marking the other roadway as US 264 messed it up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 06, 2019, 02:54:32 PM
and the lone I-587 marker still remains.
It's on the wrong mainline too, and its northbound complement is marked with two at-grade intersections in the center of the cloverleaf. Somehow, marking it as I-587 actually made it show up as the right kind of road, while marking the other roadway as US 264 messed it up.
Is OpenStreetMaps better than google maps sometimes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2019, 04:32:53 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx)

Quote
WINSTON-SALEM — State transportation contractors are planning several overnight lane closures as part of the ongoing work on the Business 40 Improvements project​.

One lane in either direction of the highway will be closed between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from Tuesday, Dec. 17 until the morning of Friday, Dec. 20, weather permitting.

Crews will begin on eastbound Business 40 at U.S. 52 and work nightly toward Sandy Ridge Road. They will then shift the closure to the westbound side to work back to U.S. 52.

These closures are needed for crews to begin changing exit numbers and mile maker signs. The new exit numbers will follow the U.S. 421 numbering rather than the old Business 40 numbering.

Drivers should slow down when approaching this stretch of Business 40 and be mindful of crews throughout the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 04:40:45 PM
and the lone I-587 marker still remains.
It's on the wrong mainline too, and its northbound complement is marked with two at-grade intersections in the center of the cloverleaf. Somehow, marking it as I-587 actually made it show up as the right kind of road, while marking the other roadway as US 264 messed it up.
It shows it with an at-grade intersection, but Google's directions still routes you through the cloverleaf. That's the key thing, especially for drivers relying on directions (I, myself, use Google Maps and Waze all the time).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 06, 2019, 11:16:47 PM
and the lone I-587 marker still remains.
It's on the wrong mainline too, and its northbound complement is marked with two at-grade intersections in the center of the cloverleaf. Somehow, marking it as I-587 actually made it show up as the right kind of road, while marking the other roadway as US 264 messed it up.
Is OpenStreetMaps better than google maps sometimes?

Yes it is, especially because under-construction roads show up on the public map and major arterials show up at all the same zoom levels as freeways. In fact, I was the one that updated the tags on the Greenville Southwest Bypass to show the road as open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 11:18:10 PM
major arterials show up at all the same zoom levels as freeways.
Quite frankly, I prefer to have a zoom level available that strictly shows the freeway network apart from the arterial system. That's one major thing I like about Google Maps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 06, 2019, 11:22:03 PM
major arterials show up at all the same zoom levels as freeways.
Quite frankly, I prefer to have a zoom level available that strictly shows the freeway network apart from the arterial system. That's one major thing I like about Google Maps.
They are visibly different colors and lineweights. Freeways are thick pink lines, and arterials are thin orange lines. I mean, I do live in South Dakota, where there are a total of six distinct major arterials, as opposed to a few hundred in other states.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2019, 11:30:18 PM
major arterials show up at all the same zoom levels as freeways.
Quite frankly, I prefer to have a zoom level available that strictly shows the freeway network apart from the arterial system. That's one major thing I like about Google Maps.
They are visibly different colors and lineweights. Freeways are thick pink lines, and arterials are thin orange lines. I mean, I do live in South Dakota, where there are a total of six distinct major arterials, as opposed to a few hundred in other states.
I'd still prefer a layer with none of the arterials visible, and strictly the freeways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 07, 2019, 12:13:41 PM
http://prntscr.com/q7ljqz

Still no ramp from SB AAF to 295? Really? I'm not sure how they are thinking on this maps... I think this is at least better compared to the ramps that they did on the SW bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 06:57:31 AM
http://prntscr.com/q7ljqz

Still no ramp from SB AAF to 295? Really? I'm not sure how they are thinking on this maps... I think this is at least better compared to the ramps that they did on the SW bypass.
I’ve said before, you have to give it at least a week or so from the time Google begins to add it to become fully functional. The rest of the road is fine.

What’s the issue with the Greenville SW Bypass?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 08, 2019, 04:12:53 PM
http://prntscr.com/q7ljqz

Still no ramp from SB AAF to 295? Really? I'm not sure how they are thinking on this maps... I think this is at least better compared to the ramps that they did on the SW bypass.
I’ve said before, you have to give it at least a week or so from the time Google begins to add it to become fully functional. The rest of the road is fine.

What’s the issue with the Greenville SW Bypass?
I-587 shields on the wrong mainline, at-grade intersections (with no turns allowed according to directions mode) in the cloverleaf with US 264, and most of the ramps are white instead of yellow. It's also supposed to be signed as NC 11 Bypass, but I don't know if Google signs state route bypasses. (I haven't seen any before.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 04:27:16 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1109218,-78.9749001,18.54z

If you look closely at the CD road it's also showing that it's at-grade instead of over.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1067833,-79.0132168,17.92z

Here too!

There's many errors.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 08, 2019, 05:17:20 PM
I-587 shields on the wrong mainline
The one thing I agree needs to be fixed.

at-grade intersections (with no turns allowed according to directions mode) in the cloverleaf with US 264
Appearance wise, it's an error, but hard to notice and directions don't mislead. It's more of a minor technical thing, nothing major.

and most of the ramps are white instead of yellow.
Agree it's a nuisance to look at, but it's probably how it's going to stay. They still function properly. The All American Freeway in Fayetteville and the US-74 Monroe Expressway are both like this as well.

It's also supposed to be signed as NC 11 Bypass, but I don't know if Google signs state route bypasses. (I haven't seen any before.)
The other thing they need to fix, agreed, but minor. At least there's nothing misleading, just a lack of info.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 08, 2019, 08:02:10 PM
http://prntscr.com/q82cmd

http://prntscr.com/q82ctm

Now we have this error...

If it was called "Greenville NW Bypass" then it would make sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 08, 2019, 11:25:19 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx)

Quote
WINSTON-SALEM — State transportation contractors are planning several overnight lane closures as part of the ongoing work on the Business 40 Improvements project​.

One lane in either direction of the highway will be closed between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from Tuesday, Dec. 17 until the morning of Friday, Dec. 20, weather permitting.

Crews will begin on eastbound Business 40 at U.S. 52 and work nightly toward Sandy Ridge Road. They will then shift the closure to the westbound side to work back to U.S. 52.

These closures are needed for crews to begin changing exit numbers and mile maker signs. The new exit numbers will follow the U.S. 421 numbering rather than the old Business 40 numbering.

Drivers should slow down when approaching this stretch of Business 40 and be mindful of crews throughout the work zone.
The new exit numbers have been posted on the Business 40 Facebook page and will be posted on https://www.business40nc.com/ (https://www.business40nc.com/) on Monday. List from the FB page:

Eastbound US-421 exits (from west to east) with their old and new numbering:

Eastbound US-421 to I-40 East will become Exit # 238 (previously no exit number)
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 3B, US-421 to US-158/Stratford Road, will become Exit # 235
Exit # 4, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Marshall Street and Cherry Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 7, US-421 to Lowery Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 8, US-421 to US-158/Walkertown/Reidsville, will become Exit # 230
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227 (even though the signs have not gone up for Exit 12)
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221

Westbound US-421 exits (from east to west) with their old and new numbering:

Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 7, US-421 to 5th Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 5D, US-421 to Main Street, will become Exit # 233A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Cherry Street and Marshall Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 4B, US-421 to West First Street, will become Exit # 234B
Exit # 4A, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 3C, US-421 to Stratford Road North, will become Exit # 235A
Exit # 3B, US-421 to Stratford Road South, will become Exit # 235B
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 1, US-421 to I-40, will become Exit # 238
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 09, 2019, 01:21:36 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx)

Quote
WINSTON-SALEM — State transportation contractors are planning several overnight lane closures as part of the ongoing work on the Business 40 Improvements project​.

One lane in either direction of the highway will be closed between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from Tuesday, Dec. 17 until the morning of Friday, Dec. 20, weather permitting.

Crews will begin on eastbound Business 40 at U.S. 52 and work nightly toward Sandy Ridge Road. They will then shift the closure to the westbound side to work back to U.S. 52.

These closures are needed for crews to begin changing exit numbers and mile maker signs. The new exit numbers will follow the U.S. 421 numbering rather than the old Business 40 numbering.

Drivers should slow down when approaching this stretch of Business 40 and be mindful of crews throughout the work zone.
The new exit numbers have been posted on the Business 40 Facebook page and will be posted on https://www.business40nc.com/ (https://www.business40nc.com/) on Monday. List from the FB page:

Eastbound US-421 exits (from west to east) with their old and new numbering:

Eastbound US-421 to I-40 East will become Exit # 238 (previously no exit number)
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 3B, US-421 to US-158/Stratford Road, will become Exit # 235
Exit # 4, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Marshall Street and Cherry Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 7, US-421 to Lowery Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 8, US-421 to US-158/Walkertown/Reidsville, will become Exit # 230
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227 (even though the signs have not gone up for Exit 12)
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221

Westbound US-421 exits (from east to west) with their old and new numbering:

Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 7, US-421 to 5th Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 5D, US-421 to Main Street, will become Exit # 233A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Cherry Street and Marshall Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 4B, US-421 to West First Street, will become Exit # 234B
Exit # 4A, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 3C, US-421 to Stratford Road North, will become Exit # 235A
Exit # 3B, US-421 to Stratford Road South, will become Exit # 235B
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 1, US-421 to I-40, will become Exit # 238

Here's the press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-09-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-09-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 09, 2019, 02:36:21 PM
Meanwhile, this news report says that the soon to Former Business 40 will open by April, if not before:
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triad/news/2019/12/09/business-40-to-possibly-open-by-april?fbclid=IwAR3x1exW_eu7dzwcU_FTJGFqaQzlAeeHom1OGdPolcKALA7Ufb6qzSbWrlY# (https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/triad/news/2019/12/09/business-40-to-possibly-open-by-april?fbclid=IwAR3x1exW_eu7dzwcU_FTJGFqaQzlAeeHom1OGdPolcKALA7Ufb6qzSbWrlY#)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 09, 2019, 10:54:56 PM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2019, 11:02:52 PM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.
You should post this in Fictional Highways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 10, 2019, 07:34:24 AM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.

Fictionality aside, there's a good chance that when I-795 is finally extended, it gets done straight out from the end of the existing freeway on a new alignment, with the original US 117 being restored to its original continuity feeding onto the US 70 expressway. Two alternatives do have the existing US 117 upgraded immediately south of here, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 09:58:09 AM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.

Fictionality aside, there's a good chance that when I-795 is finally extended, it gets done straight out from the end of the existing freeway on a new alignment, with the original US 117 being restored to its original continuity feeding onto the US 70 expressway. Two alternatives do have the existing US 117 upgraded immediately south of here, though.
Should I make a thread on fictional highways and we can do some alternatives?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 10, 2019, 01:33:43 PM
There will be a traffic shift tomorrow in Wilmington due to the Military Cutoff Road extension project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on December 10, 2019, 04:36:28 PM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.

Fictionality aside, there's a good chance that when I-795 is finally extended, it gets done straight out from the end of the existing freeway on a new alignment, with the original US 117 being restored to its original continuity feeding onto the US 70 expressway. Two alternatives do have the existing US 117 upgraded immediately south of here, though.
Should I make a thread on fictional highways and we can do some alternatives?
You already made one for Greenville. Rename it and use that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 10, 2019, 07:03:44 PM
http://prntscr.com/q8lwku

This is my plan to fix the roads in Goldsboro. Get rid of the old US-117 route and move it to the proposed I-795 route and redesign the interchange.

Fictionality aside, there's a good chance that when I-795 is finally extended, it gets done straight out from the end of the existing freeway on a new alignment, with the original US 117 being restored to its original continuity feeding onto the US 70 expressway. Two alternatives do have the existing US 117 upgraded immediately south of here, though.
Should I make a thread on fictional highways and we can do some alternatives?
You already made one for Greenville. Rename it and use that.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26090.0

Since Greenville is where I live, I made a thread like this for other towns.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 11, 2019, 09:32:39 AM
There will be a traffic shift tomorrow in Wilmington due to the Military Cutoff Road extension project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx)

An update on that press release says that it's been postponed until December 17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 11, 2019, 11:10:24 AM
There will be a traffic shift tomorrow in Wilmington due to the Military Cutoff Road extension project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-10-wilmington-traffic-shift-military-cutoff.aspx)

An update on that press release says that it's been postponed until December 17.

Hopefully someone nearby can confirm if the detour onto the ramp will have two lanes each way or if that was an error in the press release. The Traffic Management Plans had it two lanes southbound, one lane northbound, with a roughly one-lane-wide buffer. I can see how that could easily have been changed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 13, 2019, 03:19:18 PM
Due to a ramp replacement project, the Southport-Fort Fisher ferry route will shut down on January 6 and is expected to reopen by April 6.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-southport-ferry-shutdown.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-southport-ferry-shutdown.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 14, 2019, 07:00:06 PM
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=120434&page=2&cr=1

Scroll down to page 89 and look at all the alternatives considered for the Greenville Southwest Bypass.
____________________________________________________________________________________

2001 This 2001 map shows about 10 alternatives (Including upgrade existing, which would widen memorial to 8 lanes and Stantonsburg to 6 lanes)

Also there's an alternative that would have ran through South Central High School!
(https://i.imgur.com/97wHK2Y.png)

2002 This 2002 map eliminates 5 alternatives.
(https://i.imgur.com/RYomRZ4.png)

2003 This 2003 map adds one alternative (Alternative 5).
(https://i.imgur.com/EDFjPAi.png)

2004 This 2004 map shows southern extensions (South of Ayden) alternatives. The reason why I think is because to bypass Food lion and Ayden Middle school.
(https://i.imgur.com/3iit8Og.png)

2006 This 2006 map shows all the southern extensions and eliminates all of the "Northern Ayden" alternatives (Including the "upgrade existing" alternative). Who would think that the north of Ayden alternatives would be enough? IMO, I think so but's fine the way it is right now.

(https://i.imgur.com/zcoNnUY.png)

Also, I'm sure the southeast beltway of Greenville would be much smaller if they went for one of the "North of Ayden" alternatives.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 16, 2019, 11:12:39 AM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 16, 2019, 11:38:48 AM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Funny, I did both of those routes as well yesterday, along with US-70 between New Bern and Dover, and US-264 between Greenville and I-95.

Very nice result, and projects to upgrade the other two freeway segments I mentioned to interstate standards are going along nicely, the US-70 stretch mostly completed (the very western end doesn't have shoulders yet), and the US-264 stretch is close to halfway done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 16, 2019, 03:15:50 PM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Funny, I did both of those routes as well yesterday, along with US-70 between New Bern and Dover, and US-264 between Greenville and I-95.

Very nice result, and projects to upgrade the other two freeway segments I mentioned to interstate standards are going along nicely, the US-70 stretch mostly completed (the very western end doesn't have shoulders yet), and the US-264 stretch is close to halfway done.

You didn’t happen to head towards Mount Olive on US-117 to see how the Country Club Road interchange was coming along, did you? I was hoping to check it out this month while visiting a friend in Goldsboro, but something came up and I had to put off my trip to Goldsboro until sometime early next year (probably January or February).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on December 16, 2019, 03:31:02 PM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!

Yes I had a chance to drive the Southwest Bypass a couple weeks ago as well. A very beautiful and well done highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 16, 2019, 03:45:04 PM
A little heads-up:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx  (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

Quote
New Penalties Take Effect

There are now stiffer penalties for drivers who violate the state’s ”˜move-over’ law​. The new penalties took effect Dec. 1.

Under the changes, a driver could face prison time if his failure to slow down or move over for a stopped emergency vehicle results in the death or serious injury of another person. The bill also makes it a misdemeanor if someone drives around roadblocks set up because of flooded roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 16, 2019, 03:50:49 PM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Funny, I did both of those routes as well yesterday, along with US-70 between New Bern and Dover, and US-264 between Greenville and I-95.

Very nice result, and projects to upgrade the other two freeway segments I mentioned to interstate standards are going along nicely, the US-70 stretch mostly completed (the very western end doesn't have shoulders yet), and the US-264 stretch is close to halfway done.

You didn’t happen to head towards Mount Olive on US-117 to see how the Country Club Road interchange was coming along, did you? I was hoping to check it out this month while visiting a friend in Goldsboro, but something came up and I had to put off my trip to Goldsboro until sometime early next year (probably January or February).
No, I didn’t go down I-795 / US-117 on this particular trip, only US-264. When time allows, I may head down that way in the near future though.

Wasn’t the interchange supposed to be completed by now?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 16, 2019, 10:59:50 PM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Funny, I did both of those routes as well yesterday, along with US-70 between New Bern and Dover, and US-264 between Greenville and I-95.

Very nice result, and projects to upgrade the other two freeway segments I mentioned to interstate standards are going along nicely, the US-70 stretch mostly completed (the very western end doesn't have shoulders yet), and the US-264 stretch is close to halfway done.

You didn’t happen to head towards Mount Olive on US-117 to see how the Country Club Road interchange was coming along, did you? I was hoping to check it out this month while visiting a friend in Goldsboro, but something came up and I had to put off my trip to Goldsboro until sometime early next year (probably January or February).
No, I didn’t go down I-795 / US-117 on this particular trip, only US-264. When time allows, I may head down that way in the near future though.

Wasn’t the interchange supposed to be completed by now?

Yeah, but it got pushed back till spring. March, if I'm not mistaken.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on December 16, 2019, 11:29:05 PM
A little heads-up:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx  (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-13-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

What is the penalty for when a large slow truck going below the speed limit moves over a lane and causes everyone else to slam on their brakes?

Quote
New Penalties Take Effect

There are now stiffer penalties for drivers who violate the state’s ”˜move-over’ law​. The new penalties took effect Dec. 1.

Under the changes, a driver could face prison time if his failure to slow down or move over for a stopped emergency vehicle results in the death or serious injury of another person. The bill also makes it a misdemeanor if someone drives around roadblocks set up because of flooded roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 16, 2019, 11:29:48 PM
I drove on the Greenville SW Bypass for the first time yesterday.  I love how they bypassed Winterville & Ayden in addition to Greenville, now there is only one traffic light between the northern edge of Greenville and the northern edge of Kinston via the SW Bypass.

I also drove on the new US 17 route between New Bern & Jacksonville, the new route saves over 10 minutes over the old 2 lane route. AMAZING!
Funny, I did both of those routes as well yesterday, along with US-70 between New Bern and Dover, and US-264 between Greenville and I-95.

Very nice result, and projects to upgrade the other two freeway segments I mentioned to interstate standards are going along nicely, the US-70 stretch mostly completed (the very western end doesn't have shoulders yet), and the US-264 stretch is close to halfway done.

You didn’t happen to head towards Mount Olive on US-117 to see how the Country Club Road interchange was coming along, did you? I was hoping to check it out this month while visiting a friend in Goldsboro, but something came up and I had to put off my trip to Goldsboro until sometime early next year (probably January or February).
No, I didn’t go down I-795 / US-117 on this particular trip, only US-264. When time allows, I may head down that way in the near future though.

Wasn’t the interchange supposed to be completed by now?

Yeah, but it got pushed back till spring. March, if I'm not mistaken.
The original completion date, according to the NCDOT project listing, was March 2020. The project as of Oct. 31 was 91.2% complete, the completion date is now listed as the end of January 2021. The interchange probably will open though before the project is officially completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 17, 2019, 04:26:29 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-06-overnight-business-40-closures-winston-salem.aspx)

Quote
WINSTON-SALEM — State transportation contractors are planning several overnight lane closures as part of the ongoing work on the Business 40 Improvements project​.

One lane in either direction of the highway will be closed between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from Tuesday, Dec. 17 until the morning of Friday, Dec. 20, weather permitting.

Crews will begin on eastbound Business 40 at U.S. 52 and work nightly toward Sandy Ridge Road. They will then shift the closure to the westbound side to work back to U.S. 52.

These closures are needed for crews to begin changing exit numbers and mile maker signs. The new exit numbers will follow the U.S. 421 numbering rather than the old Business 40 numbering.

Drivers should slow down when approaching this stretch of Business 40 and be mindful of crews throughout the work zone.
The new exit numbers have been posted on the Business 40 Facebook page and will be posted on https://www.business40nc.com/ (https://www.business40nc.com/) on Monday. List from the FB page:

Eastbound US-421 exits (from west to east) with their old and new numbering:

Eastbound US-421 to I-40 East will become Exit # 238 (previously no exit number)
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 3B, US-421 to US-158/Stratford Road, will become Exit # 235
Exit # 4, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Marshall Street and Cherry Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 7, US-421 to Lowery Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 8, US-421 to US-158/Walkertown/Reidsville, will become Exit # 230
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227 (even though the signs have not gone up for Exit 12)
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221

Westbound US-421 exits (from east to west) with their old and new numbering:

Exit # 17, US-421 to Macy Grove Road, will become Exit # 221
Exit # 15, US-421 to NC-66/NC-150/Kernersville/Walkertown, will become Exit # 222
Exit # 14, US-421 to Kernersville/South Main Street, will become Exit # 224
Exit # 12, US-421 to NC-74 West, will become Exit # 227
Exit # 10, US-421 to Linville Road, will become Exit # 228
Exit # 7, US-421 to 5th Street, will become Exit # 231
Exit # 6C, US-421 to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, will become Exit # 232A
Exit # 6B, US-421 to US-52 North, will become Exit # 232B
Exit # 6A, US-421 to US-52 South, will become Exit # 232C
Exit # 5D, US-421 to Main Street, will become Exit # 233A
Exit # 5C, US-421 to Cherry Street and Marshall Street, will become Exit # 233B
Exit # 5A, US-421 to Peters Creek Parkway, will become Exit # 234A
Exit # 4B, US-421 to West First Street, will become Exit # 234B
Exit # 4A, US-421 to Cloverdale Avenue, will become Exit # 234C
Exit # 3C, US-421 to Stratford Road North, will become Exit # 235A
Exit # 3B, US-421 to Stratford Road South, will become Exit # 235B
Exit # 3A, US-421 to Knollwood Street, will become Exit # 236
Exit # 2B, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway North, will become Exit # 237A
Exit # 2A, US-421 to Silas Creek Parkway South, will become Exit # 237B
Exit # 1, US-421 to I-40, will become Exit # 238

Here's the press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-09-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-09-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx)

An update on that press release says that the changeover has been postponed until after Christmas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 18, 2019, 06:24:53 PM
Wasn't I-40 originally supposed to be routed to go to Durham?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 18, 2019, 11:24:57 PM
Wasn't I-40 originally supposed to be routed to go to Durham?
Check out: http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 19, 2019, 07:26:42 AM
Wasn't I-40 originally supposed to be routed to go to Durham?
Check out: http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html)
Alternative 1 was probably chosen because it wouldn't go through cities. I just wish that document worked though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2019, 10:15:20 AM
The flyover bridge from US-70 East to Slocum Gate at MCAS Cherry Point in Havelock is expected to open tomorrow morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-19-slocum-gate-overpass-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-19-slocum-gate-overpass-opening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 19, 2019, 05:56:50 PM
The flyover bridge from US-70 East to Slocum Gate at MCAS Cherry Point in Havelock is expected to open tomorrow morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-19-slocum-gate-overpass-opening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-19-slocum-gate-overpass-opening.aspx)
I would love to see some projects like that happen in Greenville. It's desperately needed. We have many non-freeways, but I'm sure we could use some of their work. I'm sure everyone there is happy! When going to the beach, it's clogged. I know that interchange would help a little bit. The Havelock bypass should already be started by now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2019, 10:22:15 AM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to I-795 between Ash Street in Goldsboro and the Wilson County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 20, 2019, 10:29:11 AM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to I-795 between Ash Street in Goldsboro and the Wilson County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx)
Isn’t the interstate only 13 years old? Are there already big issues with it or are they just trying to keep it renewed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2019, 11:07:18 AM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to I-795 between Ash Street in Goldsboro and the Wilson County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx)
Isn’t the interstate only 13 years old? Are there already big issues with it or are they just trying to keep it renewed?

Keeping it renewed. The only big screwup was after it first opened in 2006. By the time 2008 rolled around, it was falling apart because it was laid too thin and couldn't handle the weight of the trucks. NCDOT had to go back repave nearly the whole road not long after that. That left a huge black eye on NCDOT for quite some time.

I-795 was recently repaved again a little over a year ago, though that was for maintenance, not the screwup.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2019, 11:09:24 AM
Construction on the new I-26 French Broad River bridge will begin soon.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-i-26-fbr-bridge-start.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-i-26-fbr-bridge-start.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 20, 2019, 12:18:11 PM
I already posted this on the I-73/74 thread, but since this affects US 311 as well, I'm posting it here in the general NC thread:

(https://i.imgur.com/fGdR94J.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/hCfPM56.png)
Signage plans for the combined section D/E/F of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway seem to indicate plans to truncate US 311 again to the new beltway, likely after the entire eastern section is completed down to the existing I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 20, 2019, 03:18:59 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to I-795 between Ash Street in Goldsboro and the Wilson County line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-12-20-wayne-county-i-795-upgrades.aspx)
Isn’t the interstate only 13 years old? Are there already big issues with it or are they just trying to keep it renewed?

Keeping it renewed. The only big screwup was after it first opened in 2006. By the time 2008 rolled around, it was falling apart because it was laid too thin and couldn't handle the weight of the trucks. NCDOT had to go back repave nearly the whole road not long after that. That left a huge black eye on NCDOT for quite some time.

I-795 was recently repaved again a little over a year ago, though that was for maintenance, not the screwup.
Same thing with part of the Knightdale bypass. It opened in 2005-2006 and it was falling apart badly in 2013. Those markings are gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8051734,-78.4260166,3a,75y,67.52h,76.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1skFm2zFQjgouee7SbRD5S_w!2e0!5s20130701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

They were added back though.

Also, what makes me wonder is the southbound of 64/264 (Future I-87) is the westbound or southbound side is darker than the eastbound (or northbound) side! Anything why that is? Maybe it's the type of pavement that they use? Could be a different asphalt type or anything?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 21, 2019, 08:09:15 AM
This has been a pretty impressive decade for highway construction in North Carolina. The decade started with a recession and a poor financial situation at NCDOT that was putting projects on hold. That got turned around and many projects were accelerated and built. I still can't believe that all of I-85 is widened from Charlotte to Greensboro, considering they were struggling to come up with funding just to replace the Yadkin River bridge a decade ago. Unfortunately, we’re currently looking at a dismal financial picture at the end of this decade that has put numerous projects on hold.

We’ll look back at some of the bigger projects in a sort of numerical highway order.… I'm sure I missed a few.
Coming this decade (maybe)…
The future?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 21, 2019, 12:09:23 PM
This past decade, the US-17 corridor has seen some significant progress in the effort to complete a 4-lane corridor throughout the state.

54 miles has been completed, along with 23 additional miles of existing 4-lane divided freeway being incorporated, including...

Beaufort County - three segments combined to create 15 miles of continuous 4-lane divided highway, completed between 2011 and 2014:
Craven County / Jones County / Onslow County - four segments combined, along with utilizing 10 miles of the existing US-70 freeway & US-17 Neuse River Bridge, to create 35 miles of continuous 4-lane divided highway, completed between 2011 and 2019:
New Hanover County / Brunswick County - the western 14 mile stretch of I-140 completed, in combination with the existing 13 miles, creates 27 miles of continuous 4-lane divided freeway bypassing Wilmington, completed between 2014 and 2017:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 24, 2019, 11:45:50 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0858503,-79.9758072,3a,75y,288.07h,94.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8ZY4Yw372dJ0Whg1AYsytQ!2e0!5s20190601T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Pretty sure there was an overhead sign here but suddenly it disappeared. Are they going to replace it or what?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 24, 2019, 12:14:25 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.773491,-78.5073825,3a,33.5y,164.61h,95.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVS9aw3_SohLM_Be77NK-_A!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

The funny thing about this sign is they switch it from Wilson/Rocky Mount to Rocky Mount/Wilson. Anyone know why that is?  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 24, 2019, 06:38:41 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.773491,-78.5073825,3a,33.5y,164.61h,95.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVS9aw3_SohLM_Be77NK-_A!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

The funny thing about this sign is they switch it from Wilson/Rocky Mount to Rocky Mount/Wilson. Anyone know why that is?  :-D
The person who wrote the specs probably put Rocky Mount first because it's on 64 and Wilson is on 264.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 24, 2019, 07:32:13 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.773491,-78.5073825,3a,33.5y,164.61h,95.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVS9aw3_SohLM_Be77NK-_A!2e0!5s20190301T000000!7i16384!8i8192

The funny thing about this sign is they switch it from Wilson/Rocky Mount to Rocky Mount/Wilson. Anyone know why that is?  :-D
The person who wrote the specs probably put Rocky Mount first because it's on 64 and Wilson is on 264.
Also, the furthest city/town should always be on the bottom i'm sure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 25, 2019, 03:47:23 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8379,-78.6738527,3a,31y,120.27h,95.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D279.0589%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Are to I-87 signs going to be placed there? Also the links I have above i posted too, i'm asking the same question. Or are they waiting until 64/264 gets upgraded to interstate standards to Zebulon?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7641482,-78.7404012,3a,22.8y,60.16h,95.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-x3YSrLqWsvqSLlGtxYdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8036853,-78.699547,3a,19.3y,92.17h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIB0reqtu6HiL9qkhY2o_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one would also need a change.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on December 25, 2019, 04:08:27 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8379,-78.6738527,3a,31y,120.27h,95.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D279.0589%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Are to I-87 signs going to be placed there? Also the links I have above i posted too, i'm asking the same question. Or are they waiting until 64/264 gets upgraded to interstate standards to Zebulon?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7641482,-78.7404012,3a,22.8y,60.16h,95.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-x3YSrLqWsvqSLlGtxYdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8036853,-78.699547,3a,19.3y,92.17h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIB0reqtu6HiL9qkhY2o_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one would also need a change.

I-87 shields won't be placed there because I-87 doesn't go there. It turns down I-440 to the southeast to end at I-40 there. Most if not all of the signs there are updated.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 25, 2019, 04:10:15 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8379,-78.6738527,3a,31y,120.27h,95.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1stlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DtlgK9fspFgxlTWrNm1x_ww%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D279.0589%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Are to I-87 signs going to be placed there? Also the links I have above i posted too, i'm asking the same question. Or are they waiting until 64/264 gets upgraded to interstate standards to Zebulon?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7641482,-78.7404012,3a,22.8y,60.16h,95.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD-x3YSrLqWsvqSLlGtxYdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

This one too.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8036853,-78.699547,3a,19.3y,92.17h,95.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJIB0reqtu6HiL9qkhY2o_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

This one would also need a change.

I-87 shields won't be placed there because I-87 doesn't go there. It turns down I-440 to the southeast to end at I-40 there. Most if not all of the signs there are updated.
I'm saying it should say "TO I-87".
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 04:29:24 PM
I-87 shields won't be placed there because I-87 doesn't go there. It turns down I-440 to the southeast to end at I-40 there. Most if not all of the signs there are updated.
The only other signs I could think of that still need updating are ones like this sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8781881,-78.836156,3a,49.7y,145.3h,90.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssUk0IUpuMredNqEXde99Ww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and others regarding this exit, specifically replacing "To US-64 East" to "To I-87 North". This swap would make logical sense as I-540 is a bypass of Raleigh and would take motorists bound to I-87 North.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 28, 2019, 08:33:25 AM
NCDOT released an updated project suspension list (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(December%2023,%202019)%20by%20County.pdf) that includes the "tenative" start date for preliminary engineering to resume on suspended projects. Basically, engineering will resume over the next five months in the order that projects are scheduled for construction in the first five years of the STIP. If construction is not funded in the first five years of the STIP, preliminary engineering will resume at an undetermined date.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 28, 2019, 01:10:37 PM
NCDOT released an updated project suspension list (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(December%2023,%202019)%20by%20County.pdf) that includes the "tenative" start date for preliminary engineering to resume on suspended projects. Basically, engineering will resume over the next five months in the order that projects are scheduled for construction in the first five years of the STIP. If construction is not funded in the first five years of the STIP, preliminary engineering will resume at an undetermined date.
By the way what does "PE" stand for?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 28, 2019, 01:29:02 PM
I'm trying best to not change the topic, but this bridge replacement would be needed and i say make it a 4-lane bridge because people would love going from Greenville to Washington. And guess what? Construction was to begin in 2017 and nothing happened...

(https://www.nc-eminent-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/NC33.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on December 28, 2019, 01:44:29 PM
NCDOT released an updated project suspension list (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/Project-Management/Documents/Suspension%20Memo%20List%20-%20Revised%20(December%2023,%202019)%20by%20County.pdf) that includes the "tenative" start date for preliminary engineering to resume on suspended projects. Basically, engineering will resume over the next five months in the order that projects are scheduled for construction in the first five years of the STIP. If construction is not funded in the first five years of the STIP, preliminary engineering will resume at an undetermined date.
By the way what does "PE" stand for?
preliminary engineering
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 28, 2019, 10:14:04 PM
I'm trying best to not change the topic, but this bridge replacement would be needed and i say make it a 4-lane bridge because people would love going from Greenville to Washington. And guess what? Construction was to begin in 2017 and nothing happened...

(https://www.nc-eminent-domain.com/wp-content/uploads/NC33.jpg)

There really is no need to widen NC 33, because just north of that is US 264 which is a MORE than adequate 4 lane divided highway that's mostly 60 MPH.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 30, 2019, 08:55:26 AM
Does this belong on the Fictional Highways board?

I think US 13 in Eastover should be relocated to Pembroke Lane and the southern terminus should be US 301 again.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 01:21:03 PM
Road and bridge redesign on I-40 in Raleigh, N.C., addresses present congestion and future travel needs (https://www.roadsbridges.com/road-and-bridge-redesign-i-40-raleigh-nc-addresses-present-congestion-and-future-travel-needs)
Quote

(https://www.roadsbridges.com/sites/rb/files/inline-images/I-40%20wide%20view.jpg)
Excitement is buzzing in the “City of Oaks”  and its surrounding communities with so much commercial and residential development. However, growth does not come without its challenges, and like many other cities on the rise, sometimes it’s on the road where that is most obvious.

One of Raleigh’s most high-volume areas of traffic is situated on a stretch of I-40 where it breaks off from the I-440 beltline heading towards the suburbs of Johnston County. Traffic congestion and delays are common in the area, especially in the morning and afternoon rush hours. With steady growth expected to continue in the region, the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) understood that these conditions would only worsen.

“We knew that we needed to make some changes to get ahead of the curve,”  said Boyd Tharrington, division construction engineer at NCDOT. “Making improvements now will help alleviate some current traffic congestion and prepare us for the road ahead.”

As it set out to improve I-40 and plan for the future, the NCDOT understood that it would need to build a solid strategy with an experienced contractor ready to tackle the elements in design, and traffic management that come with a large project.

Building an action plan
In 2018, NCDOT set out on a major widening and redesign effort to improve existing traffic in the heavily traveled area of I-40 and accommodate future growth. The project covers nearly 13 miles of the highway extending from the I-440 divide in Raleigh to two miles east of the busy NC 42 interchange in Johnston County. Originally split into two separate projects–one for widening from I-440 to Swift Creek at the Johnston County line, and another for interchange upgrades at both NC 42 and Cleveland Road–NCDOT found a way to merge them working with S.T. Wooten as the lead contractor.

“We felt that time was of the essence on these initiatives,”  said Tharrington. “By combining various activities within one project, we’ll be able to manage progress more efficiently and get certain sections completed faster to benefit the public.”

S.T. Wooten Project Manager Matt Davis says everyone involved in the project has been in close contact since the beginning.

“Our project leaders often meet with NCDOT, but we’ve also taken things up a notch in terms of our internal meetings due to the scope,”  said Davis. “Managers from every division in our company got together to review every step of the project before we started.”

As part of its technical proposal, S.T. Wooten’s design-build team set an intermediate deadline of December 2021 for the troublesome section from the I-440 split to the U.S. 70 Bypass. The full project will wrap up in the summer of 2022.

Challenge accepted
For the I-40 expansion, S.T. Wooten will add two new lanes in each direction of the highway–extending four-lane sections to eight lanes and six-lane sections to 10 lanes. Work will also involve adding 9.5 in. of asphalt overlay to the existing lanes.

One of the biggest obstacles anticipated with the I-40 job is the traffic volume within the work zone. The project has several hauling and lane closure restrictions that require some operations to be done at night during limited hours. To help manage things, S.T. Wooten established six separate work zones where construction is happening simultaneously in different sections.

“Workflow varies depending on each individual section,”  said Davis. “For example, in one area, we’re building the inside lanes first. Then we’ll put traffic on the new inside lanes and build the outside lanes. But in other areas we’re constructing the outside lanes first, then building the inside.”

Having each work zone mapped out, Davis and his team can keep a line of sight on all the work happening and adjust if an unforeseen event occurs.

“Utility or right-of-way issues can sometimes throw a wrench into your plans,”  said Davis. “By understanding how each section fits together, we can communicate better with each other and prioritize work if needed to keep everything running on schedule.”

Bridges and diamonds
Along with the lane extensions, S.T. Wooten will manage the construction of 15 bridges along I-40 as part of the design-build project. One notable structure is a new flyover bridge coming from I-440 westbound to I-40 eastbound. The bridge has six spans, four of which have concrete girders.

At the I-40 interchange with N.C. 42, a busy hot spot for traffic, crews will reconstruct the entire interchange, converting it into a diverging diamond interchange (DDI) with dual bridges. This DDI will allow two directions of traffic guided by traffic signals, pavement markings, and concrete barriers to cross over each other at traffic signals to get onto the interstate safely and quickly.

“It’s a pretty new concept in North Carolina, but it has proven effective in its ability to let drivers come through an intersection more smoothly,”  said Tharrington. “It may appear a little different for drivers at first, but we expect this update to alleviate some of the traffic congestion that currently exists at the interchange.”

This will be the second DDI that S.T. Wooten has worked on, having previously helped build the state’s second-ever DDI to help alleviate some traffic congestion near the coast of North Carolina.

Crossing T’s on traffic management
With up to 100,000 cars expected to pass through the I-40 project each day, NCDOT and S.T. Wooten are applying a variety of techniques to ensure safety and efficiency. Intermittent speed limit reductions will be used in portions of the work zone where crews may be working. The speed limit will be reduced to 65 mph in these areas, indicated by electronic-display speed limit signs. Additionally, S.T. Wooten will be installing construction entrances and warning systems from the median to improve construction traffic flow.

“We’re taking a lot of precautions to secure the work zone for travelers and construction crews,”  said Tharrington. “We want to keep traffic flowing smoothly through the work zone and also make sure that everyone stays safe.”

During the proposal and bid phase, S.T. Wooten proposed using a smart work zone system to help monitor traffic flow and divert motorists when there are heavy traffic backups or accidents. This system utilizes a series of sensors and message boards strategically placed throughout the area to more accurately detect travel times and provide alternative routes for drivers, if needed. Should an emergency arise, signs are in place onsite to help direct motorists through the alternate routes. Details on traffic issues and conditions are also routed to the NCDOT Statewide Operations Center where they can be distributed and shared with the public.
(https://www.roadsbridges.com/sites/rb/files/inline-images/I-40%20pier%20erection.jpg)
The Long (or short) haul
Amid all the hustle and bustle, S.T. Wooten has a few tricks up its sleeve to increase efficiency when it comes time for delivery of materials. For one, most of the hauling and lane closures will take place at night to avoid run-ins with heavy traffic. Crews are also taking some unique measures with equipment to avoid hauling major loads on the highway.

“We constructed a temporary access ramp that will run from a closed highway bridge right down into the median,”  said Davis. “Paired with this, we’ve installed a new asphalt plant right beside the project in the town of Garner. We’ll also be using a materials conveyer that will allow us to bypass traffic and deliver asphalt and stone directly to the site from our plant.”

The temporary access ramp will ultimately save 34,500 loads from being hauled in traffic, and the conveyor is expected to keep an additional 7,600 loads off the road. Temporary access ramps will also be utilized to gain access to the outside areas.

Today and looking ahead
When the I-40 project kicked off, there were several delays attributed to bad weather and cold temperatures. However, getting an early start on planning and pre-paving activities has helped teams stay on schedule.

“Working with NCDOT, we’ve been able lot get a lot of non-jurisdictional work done as we await some final working permits,”  said Davis. “Clearing the median and completing grading work first puts us in a good position to activate quickly as the new year begins.”

If you drove through the job right now, you would see that crews have completed asphalt overlay throughout the entire project. The entire portable barrier wall has been installed as well. Looking to springtime of this year, the team hopes to begin making major headway on paving and have two to three bridges completed.

By the time all is said and done, the I-40 job will include more than 250 construction crew members working alongside those of the 20+ subcontractors on the project. “Development is the name of the game right now in Raleigh,”  said Tharrington. “This project will be a team effort for everyone until we see the finish line, but it’s one we can all be proud of for the positive impact it has for the community.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 30, 2019, 02:25:36 PM
I am surprised I-40 southeast of Raleigh wasn’t widened with HOT lanes in today’s climate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 02:51:54 PM
I am surprised I-40 southeast of Raleigh wasn’t widened with HOT lanes in today’s climate.
I-85 was the same way, 45 miles expanded northwest of Charlotte from 4 to 8 lanes between 1999 and 2019, without HO/T lanes, notably the most recent projects still utilizing general purpose lanes.

I-485 is currently getting one HO/T lane added in each direction between I-485 and US-77. The 8 mile segment between I-485 and Rea Road already has 3 general purpose lanes, and the remainder 9 mile segment to US-77 only has 2 general purpose lanes. Along with adding the one HO/T lane, this project will extend the 3rd general purpose lane each way between Rea Road and NC-16, a distance of about 3 miles. That would leave 11 miles with 3 general purpose lanes and 1 HO/T lane each way, and 6 miles with 2 general purpose lanes and 1 HO/T lane each way.

An extensive 76 mile long network of HO/T lanes was recently studied in Raleigh, providing 2 HO/T lanes each way along I-40 between I-85 and I-87, along I-87 between I-40 and I-540, and along I-540 between I-40 and I-87. I-40 south of I-87 was not included within the network proposal. Besides that feasibility study, nothing has come about with this proposal, though as the area grows further, traffic gets worse, and roads keep getting widened out, it may become a future solution to growing urban congestion.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 30, 2019, 05:08:54 PM
I am surprised I-40 southeast of Raleigh wasn’t widened with HOT lanes in today’s climate.

NCDOT employees would have had to pay tolls to get to their offices near the 40/440 interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 05:25:00 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1005A_Report_2015.pdf

Skip to page 48 or look at this screenshot.

http://prntscr.com/qhp5r4

And when looking at this

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40-nc42/Documents/i-5111-public-meeting-map-100217-1.pdf

If these bridges are not sloping, then they can easily put express lanes in. so it would be 4-2-2-4.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 30, 2019, 05:26:38 PM
A majority of them do live in Jo Co. You have a great point. Otherwise the characteristics between I-77 prior to the addition of HOT lanes and that specific section of I-40 are similar.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 09:04:52 PM
I'm not sure who's aware of this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5090738,-77.4527762,17.38z), but this road does not cross the bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 09:26:21 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2250_Feasibility-Study_Report_1987.pdf

Can this possibly still be built? I'm assuming it's the first part of the 'Southwest Bypass', but I'm sure this is a no-go. Haha
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 09:29:27 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2250_Feasibility-Study_Report_1987.pdf

Can this possibly still be built? I'm assuming it's the first part of the 'Southwest Bypass', but I'm sure this is a no-go. Haha
It was already built. It opened on November 21, 2019.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 09:34:48 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-2250_Feasibility-Study_Report_1987.pdf

Can this possibly still be built? I'm assuming it's the first part of the 'Southwest Bypass', but I'm sure this is a no-go. Haha
It was already built. It opened on November 21, 2019.
Look at the map and you can see how much smaller it was compared to what it is now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 09:48:23 PM
Look at the map and you can see how much smaller it was compared to what it is now.
It's still the same project, it was just expanded out. They aren't going to build -another- freeway parallel to it using that exact path. It's pointless.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 10:01:14 PM
Look at the map and you can see how much smaller it was compared to what it is now.
It's still the same project, it was just expanded out. They aren't going to build -another- freeway parallel to it using that exact path. It's pointless.
Yeah. And now this is the east-west study of Greenville's horrible traffic.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/FS-1002B_Feasibility-Study_Report_2016.pdf

If I could send this in PMs, I wouldn't of put it here, as I have a lot more projects that I have questions about too.

Do you think any part of this project is good or do you see some errors that we could possibly fix? It's like the biggest highway project in Greenville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 10:45:36 PM
Look at the map and you can see how much smaller it was compared to what it is now.
It's still the same project, it was just expanded out. They aren't going to build -another- freeway parallel to it using that exact path. It's pointless.
Yeah. And now this is the east-west study of Greenville's horrible traffic.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/FS-1002B_Feasibility-Study_Report_2016.pdf

If I could send this in PMs, I wouldn't of put it here, as I have a lot more projects that I have questions about too.

Do you think any part of this project is good or do you see some errors that we could possibly fix? It's like the biggest highway project in Greenville.
The overall idea is good, widen the arterial to 6 or 8 lanes. Reasonably, a 6-lane freeway loop along that corridor would relieve traffic significantly, though the area is too heavily developed to build one, and while you could build one further out, it would be too far out to actually serve local traffic needs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 30, 2019, 10:47:23 PM
Look at the map and you can see how much smaller it was compared to what it is now.
It's still the same project, it was just expanded out. They aren't going to build -another- freeway parallel to it using that exact path. It's pointless.
Yeah. And now this is the east-west study of Greenville's horrible traffic.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/FS-1002B_Feasibility-Study_Report_2016.pdf

If I could send this in PMs, I wouldn't of put it here, as I have a lot more projects that I have questions about too.

Do you think any part of this project is good or do you see some errors that we could possibly fix? It's like the biggest highway project in Greenville.
The overall idea is good, widen the arterial to 6 or 8 lanes. Reasonably, a 6-lane freeway loop along that corridor would relieve traffic significantly, though the area is too heavily developed to build one, and while you could build one further out, it would be too far out to actually serve local traffic needs.
Maybe something similar to Independence Blvd could work if not a full freeway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 01, 2020, 02:43:03 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

When looking at the project if they are making this a freeway then why isn't a 46 foot median being used? Everything is fine except for the median size.

EDIT: It's because it's being built as an expressway design and not a freeway. I found out why, that's kind of odd unless they are building a northern bypass that's above it (where the proposed I-74 is going to be).

And all of those relocations too, haha.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 02, 2020, 11:21:31 PM
On westbound I-540, there's a quick lane drop at US-1. When will they fix that because it was pretty odd!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 02, 2020, 11:47:40 PM
NCDOT has rescheduled the exit number changes along what will become the US 421 Salem Parkway to next week, unless, I guess it rains again:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2020-01-02-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2020-01-02-business-40-exit-number-sign-changes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 03, 2020, 01:56:39 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-03-sampson-county-contract-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-03-sampson-county-contract-awarded.aspx)

Quote
​CLINTON — State transportation officials recently have awarded a contract to build a section of a southeastern North Carolina highway on a new location in Sampson County.

A $24.5-million contract was awarded to Barnhill Contracting Company to replace two bridges that will take U.S. 421/ 701 (Faircloth Freeway) traffic over N.C. 24 (Sunset Avenue) and improve a 1.8-mile stretch of U.S. 421 (Faircloth Freeway) between the U.S. 421/ 701 interchange and east of Cecil Odie Road. The project also includes an interchange to connect U.S. 421 to the new section of roadway south of Clinton.

The improvements are a part of a larger plan to expand N.C. 24 and link it with Interstate 40. Work can begin as early as the end of January, with construction, except planting, expected to be complete in November 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 05, 2020, 06:07:11 PM
over here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5607399,-77.4674154,15.5z), wouldn't the parclo a4 interchange still be good here? that was an option at one time and it got changed to a regular diamond.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 05, 2020, 07:46:24 PM
NCDOT continues to add exit numbers on freeway bypasses. US-1 in Southern Pines has at least one exit number for NC-2/Midland Rd. interchange (I wasn't south of there). It is now Exit 42. Odd they didn't do this the last time the US Open was in town. No exit numbers on the Vass-Cameron bypass to the north yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on January 05, 2020, 09:58:38 PM
This trend will continue nationwide due to the anticipated guidance in the yet to be released new MUTCD manual. Exit numbers and mile markers make highways safer by providing a point of reference for distressed motorists, and accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 13, 2020, 06:14:45 PM
Work is beginning on a project to extend the life of the US 64 bridges over Jordan Lake between Raleigh and Pittsboro. Through September 1 traffic may be limited to one lane in each direction. These bridges are 49 years old.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-13-us-64-jordan-lake-bridge-preservation-work.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 16, 2020, 07:37:03 AM
Be careful if you're passing through Wilson County on US-264...

https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/ (https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on January 16, 2020, 10:09:39 AM
On I-85 northbound in Durham County, a few mikes north of US 70, and maybe a mile or two before Falls Lake, there is a one mile stretch of road where they have installed reflectors differently.  There are two reflectors installed between every other line, spaced about 6-12”  apart, and they’re unpaid into rectangular grooves similar to how VA and SC did in the past.  Right now, KY is the only state I am aware of that installs reflectors in this manner, which they have done since 2014.

Has anybody else noticed this, or know of an announcement regarding this?  Hopefully this will become the standard in NC and other states.
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2020, 03:25:02 PM
A new ramp from Brevard Road to I-26 West will open next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-17-i-26-new-ramp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-17-i-26-new-ramp.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 17, 2020, 06:29:41 PM
Be careful if you're passing through Wilson County on US-264...

https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/ (https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/)
Police have arrested a 14 year old in this case; he faces a total of 40 charges.
https://www.wral.com/14-year-old-facing-40-charges-for-shooting-into-cars-on-hwy-264/18890132/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 17, 2020, 07:39:05 PM
Be careful if you're passing through Wilson County on US-264...

https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/ (https://www.wral.com/police-someone-is-shooting-at-cars-on-us-264-in-wilson/18890132/)
Police have arrested a 14 year old in this case; he faces a total of 40 charges.
https://www.wral.com/14-year-old-facing-40-charges-for-shooting-into-cars-on-hwy-264/18890132/

Good.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 21, 2020, 01:40:29 PM
NCDOT will hold a statewide public comment period from January 27-February 28 regarding the upcoming 2023-2032 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/Public-Comment-Opportunity-for-Future-NCDOT-Projects.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/Public-Comment-Opportunity-for-Future-NCDOT-Projects.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 24, 2020, 08:28:19 AM
An update on the US-301 revitalization project in Wilson.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/city-us-301-project-95-complete,199829 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/city-us-301-project-95-complete,199829)

For those that can't access the article:

Quote
Crews are expected to finish the U.S. 301 redevelopment project this spring, roughly two years after the road detours started.

“I think it has been a great project,”  said Bill Bass, Wilson public works director, estimating about 95% of the project is complete. “The weather delays have extended the lane closures, but everybody seems to be very patient, and I think it will be worthwhile. It will all pay off when we finish.”

In 2015, Wilson was awarded $10 million through a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant, which was paired with $6 million from the N.C. Department of Transportation and about $2 million from the city. Construction has included improved stormwater systems from Black Creek Road to Lipscomb Road as well as raised medians, sidewalks and crosswalks.

“What they are doing currently is filling in the gaps in the sidewalks and repairing broken curb and gutter and sidewalks,”  Bass said. “Probably in March or April, when the weather gets better, they’ll use a milling machine to get the grade of the road correct, and they’ll put the final layer of surface down.

“If all the repairs are made prior to the final milling and resurface work, they may find opportunities to remove closures.”  

Originally the project was slated to be finished by now, but the N.C. Department of Transportation granted an 180-day extension to all projects across the state because of wet weather in 2018.

“For the sidewalks on Herring (Avenue), we still have some work to do in some places with the traffic signals,”  Bass said. “We also have some intersection improvements at Sallie B. Howard and on the north side of Herring.”

Safety and improving mobility throughout the area is a cornerstone of the project, but Bass said the effect won’t be evident until all the work is complete.

“If there have been any comments about the project, it is about being ready for it to be done,”  he said. “But they are excited about all the improvements, more so about the sidewalks than anything else from what I’ve heard.”

Rodger Lentz, Wilson chief planning and development officer, said the project has spurred new businesses, such as the city’s second Wendy’s location and the relocation of Public Tire Warehouse, as well as other investment.

“We have seen more inquiries and a fair bit of activity in the residential area where developers have purchased former vacant or less-than-appealing residential properties and have rehabbed them,”  Lentz said.

Officials have held meetings for residents in the area in hopes of determining what types of businesses would do well near the redeveloped thoroughfare. Lentz said a grocery store and a bank have risen to the top of the list, but that’s dependent on private developers.

“The feeling is that with an improved roadway and improved aesthetics, more development can be attracted,”  he said. “That is why the city embarked on the economic revitalization plan for the highway to develop strategies and next steps to continue the momentum of the TIGER investment.”

The plan will be presented to the Wilson City Council for approval this spring. Also, a beautification grant program is set to launch in the corridor in the coming months.

“We stand ready to assist developers and are actively promoting the corridor to business interests,”  Lentz said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 24, 2020, 08:36:17 AM
The speed limit along the US-70 / US-17 freeway through New Bern has been increased to 60 mph sometime in the past month. The last time I drove through there back in December, the speed limit was still 55 mph. This increase is also being implemented as the shoulder widening project through the urban area is nearing completion. Ultimately, it could reasonable be 65 mph as the majority of the traffic already does 65 - 70 mph, though 60 mph is an improvement over 55 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on January 24, 2020, 04:42:37 PM
I don't know if there's a better thread for this but I recently found out about a new plate NC may introduce - if enough people sign on to it. Currently it is at 299 out of 500 people needed.
(https://i.imgur.com/v3gimU6.png)

Funds from the plate will go to preserving the venus flytrap, NC is the only place in the world it naturally grows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 25, 2020, 12:05:23 PM
NCDOT says finances have stabilized but remain precarious, hoping the weather holds (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article239583348.html)

-   NCDOT’s finances have stabilized since last spring.
-   The precariousness of its finances means NCDOT has not rescinded the cost-cutting measures it put in place last year. Those are allowing the department to spend about 15 percent less on operations and maintenance.
-   NCDOT has been able to restart engineering work on about 220 projects. The department hopes to restore engineering work on about 240 more projects by the end of May.
-   NCDOT has spent close to $400 million on storm-related cleanup and repairs in the last 16 months.
-   NCDOT is still waiting on more than $100 million in FEMA reimbursement from hurricanes Matthew and Florence.
-   The General Assembly now requires the NCDOT to begin each year with $125 million in an emergency reserve fund. The department has until July 1 to transfer money into the fund to bring it up from $64 million to $125 million.
-   The state has paid about $558 million to property owners affected by the Map Act. About 635 property owners had filed lawsuits. A little more than 200 of those lawsuits remain unresolved, and NCDOT estimates it will cost another $179 million to settle them. That figure may change.
-   NCDOT will still spend about $5 billion this year on roads and bridges, airports, railroads, ferries and mass transit. State and federal gas taxes, DMV fees, highway use taxes and other sources of income have remained steady, and the department continues to issue bonds to fund major construction projects.
-   NCDOT’s finances will be back to normal by September or October, when some or all of the cutbacks will be lifted. That’s if the weather holds.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 25, 2020, 09:02:58 PM
You didn’t happen to head towards Mount Olive on US-117 to see how the Country Club Road interchange was coming along, did you? I was hoping to check it out this month while visiting a friend in Goldsboro, but something came up and I had to put off my trip to Goldsboro until sometime early next year (probably January or February).
Drove through the interchange along US-117 northbound today heading back from Wilmington.

The roadway approaches look completed, though the bridges still have some work to do. The roadway is still narrowed to one-lane and you are forced to exit and come to a stop at the bottom of the ramp. Wasn't an issue, not too much heavy traffic along US-117 at least during this drive.

The speed limit through the area remains at 55 mph along the entire segment. Once the interchange construction is completed, the speed limit ought to be increased to 70 mph along the 9 mile freeway segment between the NC-55 interchange and the US-117 Alt intersection. Easily cruised 70 mph once past the work zone, and most traffic was traveling around the same speed.

Here's an image of the overpass taken from the ramp below.

(https://i.ibb.co/CJZS6Mp/D45-A421-E-71-FA-4090-9373-0436-E4-E31-E10.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 25, 2020, 11:08:46 PM
The speed limit through the area remains at 55 mph along the entire segment. Once the interchange construction is completed, the speed limit ought to be increased to 70 mph along the 9 mile freeway segment between the NC-55 interchange and the US-117 Alt intersection. Easily cruised 70 mph once past the work zone, and most traffic was traveling around the same speed.

Unfortunately, according to the signage plans, the speed limit will remain 55 mph on both sides of the interchange for now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 26, 2020, 02:56:16 PM
^^ Thanks for the update! You should post the pic in the I-795 thread. :nod: Hopefully, the interchange will still open this spring. From what I've been told, traffic at those ramps usually isn't bad except during rush hour.

I agree that the speed limit should be set at 70mph, or at the very least, 65mph. I've been up and down that road many times growing up in Wayne County and almost everyone ignored the 55mph speed limit. Speed enforcement there is typically pretty lax. I usually cruised 65-70mph there and never had a problem, though I was more careful during holidays when the cops were out in full force feasting on travelers.

Unfortunately, according to the signage plans, the speed limit will remain 55 mph on both sides of the interchange for now.

It'll still go ignored. Sooner or later, NCDOT will take the hint.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2020, 04:06:17 PM
^^ Thanks for the update! You should post the pic in the I-795 thread. :nod: Hopefully, the interchange will still open this spring. From what I've been told, traffic at those ramps usually isn't bad except during rush hour.
I went ahead and posted it there, along with an additional photo.

I agree that the speed limit should be set at 70mph, or at the very least, 65mph. I've been up and down that road many times growing up in Wayne County and almost everyone ignored the 55mph speed limit. Speed enforcement there is typically pretty lax. I usually cruised 65-70mph there and never had a problem, though I was more careful during holidays when the cops were out in full force feasting on travelers.
When I got back on the freeway from the Country Club Rd ramp, I picked up speed, cruised for about a mile, then realized I had been up to 77 mph. At that point, I kicked it back down to 70 mph, but bottom line it felt natural to get up to those speeds. This applies to the remainder of the US-117 expressway, and most divided highways in the state. The 55 mph or 60 mph limits are artificial, and are largely ignored. I'll usually travel about 65 to 70 mph on 55 or 60 mph rural divided highways for the most part depending on the roadway. When I was on 70 mph I-40 and I-795 though, I didn't go much faster, only about 75 mph for the most part, 80 mph at some points.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 26, 2020, 06:41:37 PM
A 55 Speed Limit is a pain on the I-795 extension.  At least make it 60 like the southern end of the US 117 Connector.

Here are some other Speed Limit follies from around NC:

-55 MPH on the whole stretch of the US 17/NC 24 Jacksonville bypass (yet the 440 Beltline around Raleigh is 60 and that is WAY more urban than the Jax Bypass)

-55 MPH on I-73 from Bryan Blvd to NC 68 (near PTI Airport) Greensboro (this stretch of I-73 is too straight and the on-off ramps are too well marked and spacious for 55 MPH) The cops love to patrol this stretch!!!

-55 MPH on NC 68 from I-73 to Triad Center Dr (just north of I-40)  Freeway section much like I-73.

-I commute on NC 68 regularly, the speed limit is 55 from I-73 in Greensboro down to the Palladium Shopping Center in High Point.  The stretch from the Palladium north to Triad Center is 55 and very reasonable.  The road is straight, wide, and has at-grade intersections with traffic lights every 1/4 to 1/2 mile or so.  Most drivers (believe it or not) actually do ONLY 50-55 from Palladium to Triad Center, I usually pass them doing 60-65.

On the freeway section of NC 68 from Triad Center north to I-73, the speed limit stays 55, I usually do 65-67, and NOW everyone passes me doing 70-75+, even though the speed limit never changes!!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 26, 2020, 06:56:08 PM
-55 MPH on the whole stretch of the US 17/NC 24 Jacksonville bypass (yet the 440 Beltline around Raleigh is 60 and that is WAY more urban than the Jax Bypass)
Agreed, this could and should be posted at 60 mph. The US-70 / US-17 freeway near New Bern had a similar situation, it was posted at 55 mph through the city with traffic generally flowing 65 - 70 mph, and leaving to the west it immediately bumps to 70 mph. This segment was finally increased to 60 mph in the past month.

Much of US-17 throughout the state should be increased from 55 mph to 60 mph. This includes all the rural 4-lane divided highway segments from Virginia to South Carolina, excluding the existing 65 - 70 mph bypasses, and the developed areas. Some areas, such as from the Virginia state line to the Elizabeth City bypass, the section south of the Washington bypass, the section between the Pollocksville and Maysville bypasses, and the section near Bolivia are already posted at 60 mph, but the remainder is still a crawling 55 mph that is largely ignored.

NC-24 between Richlands and I-40, excluding Beulaville, and between Clinton and I-95 should also be increased from 55 mph to 60 mph. The entire corridor is 4-lane divided highway, a large part that was just recently built, and 55 mph is merely a suggestion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 28, 2020, 04:33:39 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning overnight closures at the junction of Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 this week as part of the widening of I-40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Tonight, and the next two nights from midnight to 5 a.m., access from I-40 East to I-440 West is scheduled to be closed.

A detour will direct drivers to continue on I-40 East to Exit 303 (Jones Sausage Road) to turn around and take I-40 West to Exit 301 to get to I-440 West.

The closures will allow for bridge girder installation on the new flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East.

​Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour route and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 29, 2020, 12:29:39 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning overnight closures at the junction of Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 this week as part of the widening of I-40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Tonight, and the next two nights from midnight to 5 a.m., access from I-40 East to I-440 West is scheduled to be closed.

A detour will direct drivers to continue on I-40 East to Exit 303 (Jones Sausage Road) to turn around and take I-40 West to Exit 301 to get to I-440 West.

The closures will allow for bridge girder installation on the new flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East.

​Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour route and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Think they forgot to mention another interstate involved with that interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 29, 2020, 01:37:00 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-28-i-40-i-440-split-closures.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning overnight closures at the junction of Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 this week as part of the widening of I-40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Tonight, and the next two nights from midnight to 5 a.m., access from I-40 East to I-440 West is scheduled to be closed.

A detour will direct drivers to continue on I-40 East to Exit 303 (Jones Sausage Road) to turn around and take I-40 West to Exit 301 to get to I-440 West.

The closures will allow for bridge girder installation on the new flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East.

​Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour route and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Think they forgot to mention another interstate involved with that interchange.

Honestly, it took me a minute before I realized what interstate you were talking about. I was used to (now defunct) I-495 ending at I-440 that I keep forgetting that I-87 doesn't end there. :pan:

I still think that either I-87 should've ended at I-440 like I-495 did, or have that short stretch of I-440 decommissioned, but that ship has sailed...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 29, 2020, 04:14:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
The I-87/440 concurrence is simply there for navigational purposes, to (a) maintain continuity of the 40/440 outer loop, and (b) bring I-87 to a junction with the other Raleigh trunk Interstate (I-40 of course).  It was probably calculated that the short distance between the two interchanges would make such a concurrency non-problematic; if it had been considerably more, then NCDOT would have likely made a choice between signing I-87 or I-440 with some form of trailblazer indicators for the other present at the I-40 interchange.  Happily, NCDOT seems to actually care about signage and navigability, unlike some other states' agencies (e.g. the lack of I-22 trailblazers from either I-40[TN] or I-55[MS] at their I-269 junctions). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 30, 2020, 09:14:01 PM
This is probably too far west in North Carolina for this thread, but this article has a good video showing the early phases of the I-26 widening south of Asheville.

https://wlos.com/news/state-of-our-roads/state-of-our-roads-what-a-wider-i-26-means-for-western-north-carolina-environment (https://wlos.com/news/state-of-our-roads/state-of-our-roads-what-a-wider-i-26-means-for-western-north-carolina-environment)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 09:24:55 PM
This is probably too far west in North Carolina for this thread, but this article has a good video showing the early phases of the I-26 widening south of Asheville.

https://wlos.com/news/state-of-our-roads/state-of-our-roads-what-a-wider-i-26-means-for-western-north-carolina-environment (https://wlos.com/news/state-of-our-roads/state-of-our-roads-what-a-wider-i-26-means-for-western-north-carolina-environment)
Good article detailing the project, and it certainly isn't too far west. This thread covers the entire state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 30, 2020, 10:58:20 PM
Glad they are doing something, about 2 years ago I took an afternoon birthday joy ride on the Blue Ridge Parway from Brevard Rd to Little Switzerland, people are now using the BRP as a commuter route from Brevard to US 70 because of the traffic on 26
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 30, 2020, 11:10:41 PM
Glad they are doing something, about 2 years ago I took an afternoon birthday joy ride on the Blue Ridge Parway from Brevard Rd to Little Switzerland, people are now using the BRP as a commuter route from Brevard to US 70 because of the traffic on 26
That entire segment of I-26 is and has always been a mess with high traffic volumes, grades, etc. This project will bring the highway up to modern standards and provide 8-lanes in the northern segment and 6-lanes in the southern segment, along with a new bridge over the French Broad River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 31, 2020, 11:42:53 AM
Glad they are doing something, about 2 years ago I took an afternoon birthday joy ride on the Blue Ridge Parway from Brevard Rd to Little Switzerland, people are now using the BRP as a commuter route from Brevard to US 70 because of the traffic on 26
From Brevard *road* or from Brevard itself?

Using the BRP as a commuter road between Brevard Road (NC 191) and Tunnel Road (US 70) in Asheville is absolutely nothing new. People were even doing that back in the 80s and 90s when I was a kid, and traffic jams were unknown in the Asheville area.

People driving the winding road up US 276 past the Cradle of Forestry to get to the Parkway from Brevard, and then driving the parkway from there to Asheville? Now *that* would be new, and wow congestion would have to be *very* bad on I-26 to make that worth it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 31, 2020, 12:06:50 PM
The former Business 40, now US 421 Salem Parkway is opening this weekend. The NCDOT press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-31-salem-parkway-business-40-winston-salem-reopen.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0JQjcDg2qtu_ZoXZJ1vIFM9P9THH07rEoSMAHbKKbFg5VbkEbR_clIPkE (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-31-salem-parkway-business-40-winston-salem-reopen.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0JQjcDg2qtu_ZoXZJ1vIFM9P9THH07rEoSMAHbKKbFg5VbkEbR_clIPkE)

Winston-Salem Journal article with many photos:
https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-reopening-this-weekend-nearly-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/article_91e765e7-28f6-5528-a711-306b61d30bca.html#25 (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-reopening-this-weekend-nearly-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/article_91e765e7-28f6-5528-a711-306b61d30bca.html#25)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 31, 2020, 02:58:57 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-phase-ii/Documents/US64_Corridor_Study_Report_Chapter3.pdf

remember alternatives 3 and 4 that show that it would be a full freeway alternative? I like that plan, there used to be a video showing the full freeway alternative but it got removed because it was old and unfeasible i think IMO.

AADT is roughly 35,000 to 50,000 and I think that definitely warrants a 6-lane expressway or a 4-lane freeway alternative.

I wish they can find a way to make it no traffic lights whatsoever.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 02, 2020, 10:42:19 PM
One inadvertent benefit of NCDOT removing most of their business Interstates is that the roads now render their route markers in OSM. :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/nUW3jhD.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 02, 2020, 11:04:28 PM
One inadvertent benefit of NCDOT removing most of their business Interstates is that the roads now render their route markers in OSM. :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/nUW3jhD.png)

However, IMO, US-421 should be the first one listed due to the fact the it's the 'primary' route along there now as all the exit numbers are for it. ;)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 03, 2020, 07:05:05 AM
One inadvertent benefit of NCDOT removing most of their business Interstates is that the roads now render their route markers in OSM. :bigass:

(https://i.imgur.com/nUW3jhD.png)

However, IMO, US-421 should be the first one listed due to the fact the it's the 'primary' route along there now as all the exit numbers are for it. ;)

Shields on guide signs consistently put 158 first, though, and OSM convention seems to always be to follow the same MUTCD rules for guide signs by listing the smallest-numbered higher-type route first. This is already done on the I-40/85 concurrency in NC, and I-75's concurrencies with I-64 and I-71 in KY, all three of which have the mileage and exit numbers of the higher numbered route, but have guide signs listing the smaller numbered route first.

I did just notice that the OSM Carto team seems to have changed the rendering of ref tags to have less left and right padding on higher zoom levels. I don't think it looks very good, but I'm sure it has benefits.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 03, 2020, 04:32:46 PM
Have the exit numbers on the Salem Parkway already been renumbered to 221 through 238 (US 421's mileage)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 03, 2020, 09:22:32 PM
Have the exit numbers on the Salem Parkway already been renumbered to 221 through 238 (US 421's mileage)?

Yes, they were renumbered about a month ago. Presumably some of the whole guide signs outside of the closure area were replaced at the same time, but I don't know for sure since there don't seem to be any pictures from that time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 04, 2020, 08:04:23 AM
For the most part, at least on the west side, the signs have been renumbered, though only one sign as of last week on 421 north references I-40's new exit # (238)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 04, 2020, 06:38:56 PM
Police stopped 'a lot' of drivers on Salem Parkway the day after it reopened (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/police-stopped-a-lot-of-drivers-on-salem-parkway-the/article_ab7fe3d9-a999-5141-9f39-0fce93655447.html)
Quote
Winston-Salem police were out in force Monday to stop speeding drivers on the newly reopened Salem Parkway, formerly known as Business 40.

Police administrators couldn’t immediately provide an exact number of tickets issued by officers because it takes time to separate that data from all of Monday’s police reports and other citations, police Lt. Jose Gomez said.

He did say officers working with the Winston-Salem Police Department’s traffic enforcement unit “stopped a lot of motorists.”

“Motorists know that Salem Parkway is open, but we need them to abide by the posted speed limit so we can reduce crashes and injuries to citizens,”  Gomez said.

The one-mile section of the highway that runs through downtown Winston-Salem has a 45-mph speed limit. The police department deployed officers in marked and unmarked patrol cars as well as on motorcycles to enforce the speed limit.

Because Salem Parkway is a state-maintained road, the N.C. Highway Patrol also deployed at least one trooper to monitor speed on the highway, a DOT official said.

The downtown section of highway reopened Sunday morning after it was closed for slightly more than 14 months for renovation work that included repaving, longer ramps and higher bridge clearances.

Drivers have traditionally exceeded the posted speed limit of 45 mph on that stretch of highway, which is also known as U.S. 421, Gomez said.

Before the stretch of highway was closed in November 2018, it carried more than 80,000 vehicles a day.

Officials with the N.C. Department of Transportation will perform a traffic count on the highway after its renovation is fully complete this summer.

On the other hand, NCDOT is studying raising it to at least 55 mph.

Ask SAM: What is the speed limit on Salem Parkway? (https://www.journalnow.com/news/ask_sam/ask-sam-what-is-the-speed-limit-on-salem-parkway/article_9793557e-03c4-5678-b992-490e509fd31f.html)
Quote
Q: What is the speed limit on the newly opened Salem Parkway? If it’s 45 mph now, will it be increased to 55 or 65 once all the construction is complete?

Answer: The posted speed limit on US 421/Salem Parkway is currently 45 mph between Stratford Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, according to the N.C. Department of Transportation.

“Once the project is completed and traffic stabilizes, NCDOT will study this section of the highway to determine if the speed limit can safely be increased to at least 55 mph,”  said Pat Ivey, division engineer for the department. “This should occur later this spring or early summer.”

From the first article, an overhead shot of the reconstructed freeway at night. The new segment appears to be built to interstate standards.
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/55/155bf23d-3487-5ce4-a867-65eb6b547ec5/5e36af3bd904f.image.jpg?resize=1700%2C1098)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 04, 2020, 07:13:32 PM
The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the I-26 Connector in Asheville has been released. FHWA is expected to issue the Record of Decision this summer.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-04-i-26-connector-feis.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-04-i-26-connector-feis.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on February 05, 2020, 06:09:39 AM
That's what I don't get about the speeding.  It's been 45mph since as long as I can remember...and I moved to the Triad in 1975.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 05, 2020, 03:49:47 PM
Dynamic left-turn intersections coming to Cary and Clayton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on February 05, 2020, 11:48:56 PM
That's what I don't get about the speeding.  It's been 45mph since as long as I can remember...and I moved to the Triad in 1975.
I am sure it was at 55 mph or higher in the 1960's and even into the early 1970's, until it was lowered for safety reasons.  The Hawthorne curve along with and the congestion caused many accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 06, 2020, 07:12:43 AM
Dynamic left-turn intersections coming to Cary and Clayton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx)

not sure how i feel about this. seems like a good source for confusion
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2020, 07:14:13 AM
not sure how i feel about this. seems like a good source for confusion
Agreed. What's the issue with simply having a double left turn with permissive phasing during off-peak hours?

It's used in at least one other place (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.783355,-78.4421346,3a,49.1y,299.19h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKKJUxxEcKQtE5_vclJB0tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) in the area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 06, 2020, 08:27:22 AM
not sure how i feel about this. seems like a good source for confusion
Agreed. What's the issue with simply having a double left turn with permissive phasing during off-peak hours?

It's used in at least one other place (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.783355,-78.4421346,3a,49.1y,299.19h,84.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKKJUxxEcKQtE5_vclJB0tg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1) in the area.

yea theres a double permissive left at Pinecrest and US 70 that i pass everyday. it seems to work fine. a big RED X is just going to make folks think left turns are prohibited outright.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 06, 2020, 01:55:31 PM
As part of the I-95 widening project, the Long Branch Road bridge (Exit 71) in Harnett County will close Sunday night. The new bridge and upgraded interchange is expected to open next year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-06-i-95-widening-harnett-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-06-i-95-widening-harnett-county.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2020, 06:45:44 PM
Looking closer into the I-95 widening projects, it appears now all 40 miles (25 miles north of Fayetteville, 15 miles south of Fayetteville, excluding the Fayetteville Bypass) of I-95 will be under construction by the end of the year, and will be fully completed to 8-lanes by 2024.

In total, $1.1 billion (approx. $28 million per mile) for 40 miles (approx. 22% of the corridor in NC) of widening from 4 to 8 lanes by 2024, toll free.

I'm wondering how the traffic will hold up with the Fayetteville Bypass still only being 4-lanes. Hopefully sooner or later they will receive more funding to close that 15 mile gap, and provide 55 miles of continuous 8-lane interstate highway before 2030. If the southern 15 mile project is any indication, it will likely be around $400 million as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: index on February 06, 2020, 08:42:51 PM
We're having some really nasty flooding going on here, looks like it was enough to knock out this bridge just north of the SC line, crossing Buffalo Creek.

https://twitter(dot)com/W4WNO/status/1225590264770781185
Edit: Fixed the post...The forum decided it wanted to randomly auto-size the link out of existence and refuses to embed the tweet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2020, 08:49:06 PM
In total, $1.1 billion (approx. $28 million per mile) for 40 miles (approx. 22% of the corridor in NC) of widening from 4 to 8 lanes by 2024, toll free.
And 78% of it will still be 4 lanes.

I'm wondering how the traffic will hold up with the Fayetteville Bypass still only being 4-lanes.
Completed IIRC in 1980 and to much higher standards than the most of the corridor as one of the last sections built.  I would expect this to be one of the last sections to be widened.  Also it is paralleled by 4-lane divided US-301 which relieves some of the traffic at least on the local level.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
And 78% of it will still be 4 lanes.
Still a major improvement over the existing 100% of 4-lanes. The eventual goal is to widen the interstate to a minimum of 6 lanes throughout the state, but you have to start somewhere. For being a "Phase 1", $1.1 billion for 40 miles of 8-lane widening is a major investment in only a 4 year period, and will go a long way to alleviate congestion on the corridor, especially during peak travel periods.

Completed IIRC in 1980 and to much higher standards than the most of the corridor as one of the last sections built.  I would expect this to be one of the last sections to be widened.  Also it is paralleled by 4-lane divided US-301 which relieves some of the traffic at least on the local level.
Higher standards, but still only 4-lanes. I believe the plan is eventually to widen this section to 8-lanes to match the upcoming projects to the north and south, though is not currently funded.

The completion of the I-295 beltway in 2025 will complete a full 39-mile interstate loop around the city, and could likely draw more local traffic off of I-95, particularly traffic bound to/from the southern and northern sides of the city to/from I-95. It could also serve as an alternate route to I-95 in the event of an incident / closure, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 06, 2020, 09:57:51 PM
We're having some really nasty flooding going on here, looks like it was enough to knock out this bridge just north of the SC line, crossing Buffalo Creek.


https://twitter.com/W4WNO/status/1225590264770781185?s=19
There's also been a rock slide closing US 19/74 in Western NC:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-06-slide-closes-nantahala-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-06-slide-closes-nantahala-gorge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 06, 2020, 09:59:11 PM
And 78% of it will still be 4 lanes.
Still a major improvement over the existing 100% of 4-lanes. The eventual goal is to widen the interstate to a minimum of 6 lanes throughout the state, but you have to start somewhere. For being a "Phase 1", $1.1 billion for 40 miles of 8-lane widening is a major investment in only a 4 year period, and will go a long way to alleviate congestion on the corridor, especially during peak travel periods.
Not that much … as you cited only 22% of the corridor.  The rural Interstate corridors can have miles long rolling backups happen anywhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 06, 2020, 10:47:16 PM
Not that much … as you cited only 22% of the corridor.  The rural Interstate corridors can have miles long rolling backups happen anywhere.
Again, have to start somewhere. You don't expect them to begin construction on all 182 miles at once, do you? In my opinion, even the current 40 miles and $1.1 billion in one phase is a large undertaking and step forward towards a completed 6-8 lane corridor.

I-95 between I-40 and Lumberton has around 60,000 AADT, and is the busiest stretch of I-95 throughout the state. I agree I-95 needs to be widened to 6-lanes minimum throughout the entire state eventually, but the section they're starting with is a good place to start, and they're being proactive by building it out to 8-lanes rather than 6-lanes, which can almost guarantee it will never be congested. I-95 north of I-40 only has 30,000 - 40,000 AADT, and south of Lumberton only around 40,000 AADT. Those sections are only planned for 6-lane widening, when funded.

It took NCDOT around 20 years to complete a 6-lane minimum corridor between the Raleigh / Durham area and Charlotte, with 30 miles of 8-lane widening between I-40 and Greensboro completed in the late 1990s, the 12 mile 6-8 lane Greensboro southern bypass in 2004, and 45 miles of 8-lane widening north of Charlotte between the early 2000s and 2019. The last "gap" still exists with the 4-lane portions of I-85 between I-40 and Durham, and I-40 between I-85 and Chapel Hill, though that last bit of 4-lane I-40 is planned for 6-lane widening in the next few years which will fully complete a 6-8 lane corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 07, 2020, 08:05:34 AM
Plus looking at the I-95 Fayetteville bypass, it appears to be graded for 6-8 lanes with plenty of clearance at overhead structures.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Beltway on February 07, 2020, 10:14:56 AM
Plus looking at the I-95 Fayetteville bypass, it appears to be graded for 6-8 lanes with plenty of clearance at overhead structures.
Built with a wide median and independently graded roadways, common for 1970s designs on rural Interstate highway. 

I don't think they were thinking of more than 4 lanes at that point.  I recall the era -- it was hard to conceptualize what it would be like to have a completed I-95 on the eastern seaboard, or how much traffic it would carry 40 years later, given the light usage on the segments of I-95 that were complete in the South.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 07, 2020, 12:05:21 PM
The former Business 40, now US 421 Salem Parkway is opening this weekend. The NCDOT press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-31-salem-parkway-business-40-winston-salem-reopen.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0JQjcDg2qtu_ZoXZJ1vIFM9P9THH07rEoSMAHbKKbFg5VbkEbR_clIPkE (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-01-31-salem-parkway-business-40-winston-salem-reopen.aspx?fbclid=IwAR0JQjcDg2qtu_ZoXZJ1vIFM9P9THH07rEoSMAHbKKbFg5VbkEbR_clIPkE)

Winston-Salem Journal article with many photos:
https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-reopening-this-weekend-nearly-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/article_91e765e7-28f6-5528-a711-306b61d30bca.html#25 (https://www.journalnow.com/news/local/business-reopening-this-weekend-nearly-six-months-ahead-of-schedule/article_91e765e7-28f6-5528-a711-306b61d30bca.html#25)

A ribbon-cutting ceremony will be held later this year after the remaining work is done.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-07-this-week-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-07-this-week-ncdot.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 07, 2020, 04:34:39 PM
Built with a wide median and independently graded roadways, common for 1970s designs on rural Interstate highway.
For the most part, the 1980 Fayetteville Bypass has a consistent typical section maintaining a 93 foot median, though widens out on curves and at a few select locations. The other newer segment of I-95 from Kenly to Rocky Mount, completed 1979, has a consistent typical section maintaining a 60 foot median in areas, though in many areas has a much larger median with a tree-filled median, like you mentioned a common design in 1970s construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 08, 2020, 07:44:02 AM
^ After looking into the I-95 widening project details closer, I was wrong about the southern section.

To clarify -
- The section from north of Fayetteville to I-40 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-95-widening/Pages/default.aspx) begins in 2020 and will be completed by 2024. The $708.9 million project will widen 25 miles from 4 to 8 lanes.
- The section from south of Fayetteville to Lumberton (https://publicinput.com/4633/) was projected to begin in 2028, a $447.8 million project to widen 19 miles from 4 to 8 lanes. However, a grant awarded in November 2019 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-11-08-ncdot-secures-build-grant-i-95.aspx) is planned to accelerate this project, and it extend it an additional 8 miles southward to I-74 along with raising the interstate in low-lying flood prone areas, notably areas that were underwater during Hurricane Florence in 2018. I've not been able to find any updated cost estimate for this most recent project, though will likely begin before 2028.

By ~2030, 52 miles or 29% of I-95 should be completed to 8-lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 11, 2020, 04:46:43 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-11-ocracoke-sandbag-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-11-ocracoke-sandbag-project.aspx)

Quote
​OCRACOKE — The N.C. Department of Transportation Wednesday will begin placing additional sand and sandbags along portions of N.C. 12 on Ocracoke Island. The project is designed to shore up four segments of the roadway damaged by Hurricane Dorian and a subsequent storm in November.

The project will involve placing more than 2,500 sandbags along 4,200 feet of roadway at the north end of the island. While no major traffic delays are anticipated, NCDOT will have traffic control in place to maintain a safe environment.

Contractors hope to have the project complete in three months, but the process is extremely weather-dependent. If completion is not possible by Mid-May, work will stop until after Labor Day in order to facilitate summertime traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 13, 2020, 10:51:13 AM
The ramp from I-40 East to Aviation Parkway (Exit 285) near Morrisville is scheduled to close for up to 60 days.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 13, 2020, 06:48:58 PM
The ramp from I-40 East to Aviation Parkway (Exit 285) near Morrisville is scheduled to close for up to 60 days.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx)
The posted detour directs westbound drivers to go on to the next exit (Airport Boulevard), get off, and then come back eastbound to Aviation Parkway. I hope 98% of them will be smart enough to recognize that as silly: they can use northbound Airport Boulevard to access both the airport and and Aviation Parkway,
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on February 14, 2020, 07:53:05 AM
The ramp from I-40 East to Aviation Parkway (Exit 285) near Morrisville is scheduled to close for up to 60 days.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-13-i-40-aviation-pkwy-closures.aspx)
The posted detour directs westbound drivers to go on to the next exit (Airport Boulevard), get off, and then come back eastbound to Aviation Parkway. I hope 98% of them will be smart enough to recognize that as silly: they can use northbound Airport Boulevard to access both the airport and and Aviation Parkway,

How long have you lived here?  There are people who will still do this, remember, they have a hard enough time being on the same road but, having the street name change 3 times. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 14, 2020, 11:01:03 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-14-duplin-county-ramps-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-14-duplin-county-ramps-closure.aspx)

Quote
WARSAW — The N.C. Department of Transportation will close two ramps at a Duplin County highway interchange for about a week and a half.

Between Feb. 17 and Feb. 26, the westbound entrance ramp to Interstate 40 and the eastbound exit ramp at N.C. 24 will be closed. During the closure, crews will rehab the bridge deck overlay.

Drivers heading eastbound from I-40 to N.C. 24 will be detoured to exit 369 and back west to the exit 364 exit. Drivers heading westbound from N.C. 24 to I-40 will be detoured east to exit 369 and back west to I-40 West.  The detours will be signed, and message boards will be in place to notify motorists of the closures.

Motorists should anticipate needing extra time for their commute and are urged to use caution when traveling in this area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ushighway421 on February 14, 2020, 07:06:21 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_285_(North_Carolina)

ncdot wants to extend i-285 north of i-40 along us 52 to the i-74/i-274 interchange proposed for winston salem.

cant help but think, it would be better to have i-285 go around the western stretch of the beltway, starting from a brief interchange with i 40 and come back northeast to run on a small stretch of us 52 thru king, and it just be i-74/i-285 instead of three different interstate designations.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 15, 2020, 08:42:06 AM
Dynamic left-turn intersections coming to Cary and Clayton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx)

That didn't go over well...

https://abc11.com/5932058/ (https://abc11.com/5932058/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 16, 2020, 07:28:36 AM
Dynamic left-turn intersections coming to Cary and Clayton.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-05-dynamic-left-turn-intersection.aspx)

That didn't go over well...

https://abc11.com/5932058/ (https://abc11.com/5932058/)
called it
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 19, 2020, 11:14:40 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-19-i-40-garner-rd-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-19-i-40-garner-rd-closure.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning closures on westbound Interstate 40 as part of the widening project from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

For the next two nights between midnight and 5 a.m., westbound I-40 traffic will be stopped for up to 30 minutes at a time as crews place the girders on the new East Garner Road bridge over the highway. Impending weather could push tomorrow night's work to Friday night.

As an alternate route, drivers should take Exit 306A (U.S. 70 West) to Jones Sausage Road to get back to I-40 West.

Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the alternate route and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 20, 2020, 09:20:55 AM
Regarding the Harvey Parkway extension project in Kinston, the Humphrey Road intersection on NC-58 will close permanently on Feb. 24. Humphrey Road will be cul-de-sac'ed near NC-58.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-20-lenoir-county-road-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-20-lenoir-county-road-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dustin DeWinn on February 21, 2020, 09:54:06 AM
Kinston Bypass route selected

https://www.witn.com/content/news/Kinston-bypass-route-selected-by-DOT-568049061.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2020, 10:03:06 AM
^

See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18287.750 for future I-42 discussion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 24, 2020, 04:55:41 PM
NCDOT is holding an informational meeting on March 5 in Rodanthe to discuss the ongoing "jug handle" bridge project there.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-24-rodanthe-march-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-24-rodanthe-march-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 04:58:42 PM
New Rest Areas Coming to I-26 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-25-i-26-new-rest-areas.aspx)
Quote
ASHEVILLE — Some components of the Interstate 26 Widening project are happening earlier than anticipated.

The N.C. Department of Transportation will close the eastbound and westbound rest areas on I-26 near the Buncombe and Henderson county line at noon on Friday as part of the project.

The project will improve I-26 from four lanes to eight lanes between Brevard Road in Asheville and U.S. 25 Business in Fletcher, and from four lanes to six lanes from U.S. 25 Business to U.S. 64 in Hendersonville. The $534 million project will reduce congestion and improve the roadway and structures before completion in late 2024.

A transformation of the rest areas will begin immediately. Improvements will include additional room for parking and brand new buildings with modern technology that will open before the project is completed.

“The new facilities will be an important part of the project, and will provide modern conveniences for local as well as long-distance travelers,”  NCDOT Resident Engineer Mike Patton said. “We know that closing the rest areas will inconvenience drivers in the Asheville area, especially truck drivers, but we’re certain that everyone will be delighted with the brand new facilities.”

NCDOT crews will clear out the existing facilities this weekend and prepare the properties for demolition, scheduled for April. Following demolition, the properties will transform into staging areas for construction equipment. Construction on the new facilities will begin after the sites are prepared by grading and installing new utilities.

Parking will be expanded to 100 passenger vehicle spaces and more than 30 truck spaces at each rest area. The new buildings will expand to  more than 5,200 square feet. They will feature more natural light, LED lighting, low-flow water utilities, modern vending machines, a new floor plan and a memorial to NCDOT employees killed on duty.

Outside amenities will include a larger picnic area, a dog-walking area, and landscaping with native plants, flowers, and shrubs including 450 new trees.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 25, 2020, 05:35:32 PM
More truck parking spots are definitely needed on I-26. That's going to be rough for the westbound drivers, not that there were many spots there to begin with. Seven spots at the Welcome Center in Polk County (which is between MM 68 and 67.5, NCDOT :no:) and ±8 at the rest area on I-40 in Haywood.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 25, 2020, 05:43:25 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on February 25, 2020, 08:12:45 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

Quite possibly the first step in the potential designation of a longer future Interstate corridor along US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 at Rockingham.   We'll just have to wait to see if the Monroe-Rockingham section can garner similar interest and continuing support down the line -- and if the efforts would be coordinated in some fashion. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 25, 2020, 09:19:29 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/
Make it I-30!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2020, 09:21:29 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

Quite possibly the first step in the potential designation of a longer future Interstate corridor along US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 at Rockingham.   We'll just have to wait to see if the Monroe-Rockingham section can garner similar interest and continuing support down the line -- and if the efforts would be coordinated in some fashion.
Even better - terminating I-74 at I-73 southeast of Winston-Salem, and designating the I-74 portion between Rockingham and Bolton apart of that US-74 corridor, and extending to Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 25, 2020, 09:31:49 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

Quite possibly the first step in the potential designation of a longer future Interstate corridor along US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 at Rockingham.   We'll just have to wait to see if the Monroe-Rockingham section can garner similar interest and continuing support down the line -- and if the efforts would be coordinated in some fashion.
Even better - terminating I-74 at I-73 southeast of Winston-Salem, and designating the I-74 portion between Rockingham and Bolton apart of that US-74 corridor, and extending to Wilmington.
Looks like you're saying you want I-74 cut short. I want it I-30. I-28 is a little too low, and NC 28 is just west of it so it wouldn't be a problem honestly.

I-30 - would be the best IMO because it's a major interstate highway and it could possibly get extended from Little Rock into North Carolina. Check out my plans in Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26003.0).

I-32 - There is a NC 32, but it's just east of Washington and Plymouth, so it wouldn't be a problem numbering it like that.

I-34 - probably better than I-32 since NC 34 is around Elizabeth City!

I-36 - would be ideal too. There is no NC 36.

I-38 - there is a NC 38 and SC 38 so it would not be ideal.

In my opinion, the order would be I-30, I-36, I-34, I-32, I-38, and I-28 (best to worst).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on February 25, 2020, 09:46:16 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

Quite possibly the first step in the potential designation of a longer future Interstate corridor along US 74 from I-26 to I-73/74 at Rockingham.   We'll just have to wait to see if the Monroe-Rockingham section can garner similar interest and continuing support down the line -- and if the efforts would be coordinated in some fashion.
Even better - terminating I-74 at I-73 southeast of Winston-Salem, and designating the I-74 portion between Rockingham and Bolton apart of that US-74 corridor, and extending to Wilmington.
I suggested that too, as well as extending the route along I-26 and through eastern Kentucky to meet up with I-74 in Cincinnati, mostly following US 23, KY 201, KY 1, and KY 9.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 25, 2020, 10:08:50 PM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/
Make it I-30!

Considering that they've already insisted on duplicating a 2di for no good reason when an east-west number would've been just fine, don't give them any ideas...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2020, 06:31:52 AM
^

Using NCDOT’s logic, obviously US-74 between Wilmington and I-26 is best suited to become a southern I-79 or I-83.  :bigass:

Going towards Wilmington is southbound, going towards Asheville is northbound.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2020, 07:39:41 AM
The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

I figured this would happen sooner or later. I-426 would be the number I'd go for.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 26, 2020, 06:11:34 PM
According to the article, Rutherford approached Polk about the support. Improvements are already proposed in Rutherford's Comprehensive Transportation Plan (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Rutherford%20County/Final%20CTP%20Report.pdf) from a couple of years ago. I'm about 98% sure Polk already "passed" something like this in the past.

Apparently Polk and Rutherford did in 2013: Bigger plans for US 74 bypass? (https://www.gastongazette.com/20130417/bigger-plans-for-us-74-bypass/304179941) April 17, 2013

There's just so little representation out that way. Rep. Johnson is the first state representative from Polk County in 54 years. No one in Raleigh has a reason to drive US 74. If Shelby was between Raleigh and the beach it would have been bypassed 20+ years ago.

IF it ever happens, I think the Columbus-Kings Mountain segment and Matthews-Rockingham segments will get separate 3di numbering since there seems to be no real long term goal in Raleigh for US 74 across the state.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2020, 06:33:32 PM
^
My suggestion for approaching the I-73 / I-74 issue and keeping it realistic would be the following -
1) Delete the existing and future I-74 designation between the northern junction with I-73 and the southern terminus in Myrtle Beach. This would leave I-73 a single designation throughout the state, with no long overlaps (I-840 withstanding).
2) Designate the US-74 corridor, utilizing I-85, I-485, and US-74 Toll Bypass in the Charlotte area, from I-26 to Downtown Wilmington as Future I-3x, and immediately sign-post the existing I-74 segments with the new designation that would be deleted so those towns don't "lose" interstate access.
3) Eventually delete the I-74 designation entirely in North Carolina, and designate a 2di or 3di along the existing segment between I-77 and I-73 via Winston-Salem and High Point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 26, 2020, 06:48:36 PM
^
My suggestion for approaching the I-73 / I-74 issue and keeping it realistic would be the following -
1) Delete the existing and future I-74 designation between the northern junction with I-73 and the southern terminus in Myrtle Beach. This would leave I-73 a single designation throughout the state, with no long overlaps (I-840 withstanding).
2) Designate the US-74 corridor, utilizing I-85, I-485, and US-74 Toll Bypass in the Charlotte area, from I-26 to Downtown Wilmington as Future I-3x, and immediately sign-post the existing I-74 segments with the new designation that would be deleted so those towns don't "lose" interstate access.
3) Eventually delete the I-74 designation entirely in North Carolina, and designate a 2di or 3di along the existing segment between I-77 and I-73 via Winston-Salem and High Point.
if any new 2di, especially for the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, I say it would be I-79 or I-83 (most likely I-83 since it's further away).
Fun fact - if you want to extend the proposed 2di interstate down to Myrtle Beach, I-73 will die.

I don't see how a 3di would work, and I hope there's no odd digits. Maybe I-477 or I-677 or I-877.

http://prntscr.com/r87sv8

The Polk County Board of Commissioners approved a resolution in support of designating US 74 between Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 to a "future interstate quality corridor."

Hopefully they also sent a map showing US 74 since no one in Raleigh probably has a clue where Polk or Rutherford counties are located.

https://www.tryondailybulletin.com/2020/02/25/polk-approves-us-74-resolution/

I figured this would happen sooner or later. I-426 would be the number I'd go for.
I feel like a 3 digit for that route is too long, as it looks longer than I-476 in Pennsylvania. I think it should stay designed as a 2-digit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2020, 07:05:53 PM
I don’t think the Monroe Bypass can become an interstate, since it’s tolled.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 26, 2020, 07:11:48 PM
I don’t think the Monroe Bypass can become an interstate, since it’s tolled.
There's highways that have been tolled and have an interstate. And if they were going to plan an interstate from Asheville to Wilmington, why was that bypass tolled in the first place?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 26, 2020, 07:16:30 PM
I don’t think the Monroe Bypass can become an interstate, since it’s tolled.
Since no federal funding was used in the project, it can be designated as an interstate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2020, 03:26:29 PM
The Monroe Bypass does not need an Interstate designation. It should keep its existing US 74 Bypass designation. Likewise, US 74 between Charlotte and Rockingham doesn't need an Interstate designation either. As for the US 74 corridor between Interstates 26 and 85, I could live with it being designated Interstate 426, since there aren't any 3di's of Interstate 26 in North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 04:40:39 PM
The Monroe Bypass does not need an Interstate designation. It should keep its existing US 74 Bypass designation. Likewise, US 74 between Charlotte and Rockingham doesn't need an Interstate designation either. As for the US 74 corridor between Interstates 26 and 85, I could live with it being designated Interstate 426, since there aren't any 3di's of Interstate 26 in North Carolina.
The entire corridor from I-26 to Wilmington warrants an interstate highway designation, not two separate designations between I-26 <-> I-85 and I-73 <-> Wilmington. It's a main connection across the southern part of the state, and long-range plans call for upgrading it into an interstate highway, and a lot has already been built. It connects Asheville, Charlotte, and Wilmington and is a shortcut I-40 for end-to-end traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 27, 2020, 04:49:31 PM
You will want to go with 36 or lower, I can for see an East West mid state interstate on the drawing board in 30 years.  Mocksville Asheboro Siler City Cary, you will need 38 reserved for that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 27, 2020, 05:47:22 PM
Apparently House Speaker Timmy Moore is reading my posts about the Shelby bypass. Better late than never, I guess.

How Shelby bypass project could drive development in region - WSOC (https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/how-shelby-bypass-project-could-drive-development-region/6LPN6UF4ZVBFBJLYJAVV5NYOHI/)
Full article from Charlotte Business Journal with potential pay wall: How the Shelby bypass project could affect development in Cleveland County (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/02/20/how-the-shelby-bypass-project-could-affect.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 27, 2020, 06:04:28 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-27-i-40-i-440-split-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-27-i-40-i-440-split-closure.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning a closure tonight at the junction of Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 as part of the widening of I-40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

From midnight to 5 a.m., I-40 West will be closed at Exit 301. Drivers will take the exit and proceed to Poole Road (Exit 15) to turn around and continue on I-40 West.

The closure will allow for girder installation on the new flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East.

​Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour route and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 27, 2020, 06:43:36 PM
You will want to go with 36 or lower, I can for see an East West mid state interstate on the drawing board in 30 years.  Mocksville Asheboro Siler City Cary, you will need 38 reserved for that.
Repeating earlier posts: the best choice for a 2di designation from I-26 to Wilmington would be I-36, because there is no NC 36.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 28, 2020, 07:50:33 AM
Apparently Raleigh does care about US 74. It looks like the NCDOT is applying for a $63.5 million INFRA Grant for upgrades along the corridor. This includes $10 million towards the Shelby Bypass (and construction maybe moving up a year?), the Mooresboro interchange in Cleveland County (R-4045), installation of fiber optic to support ITS and signal improvements, and installation of flood gauges in Columbus and Robeson counties. Half of the grant would go to fiber and ITS installation. This enables signal synchronization for the stretch from Marshville through Wadesboro.

If the grant is awarded and the state's funding holds up for the four interchange projects in Columbus and Robeson counties, US 74 will be completely grade separated from I-26 to I-85 and from Laurinburg to Bolton by 2026.

US 74 Corridor Opportunities for Rural Efficiency and Safety Improvements (CORESI) (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/Narrative%20US%2074%20NCDOT.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2020, 05:48:38 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-28-i-440-jones-franklin-ramp-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-02-28-i-440-jones-franklin-ramp-closure.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH – As part of the Interstate 440 Improvements project, N.C. Department of Transportation contractors will be closing the exit ramps at the Jones Franklin Road interchange Sunday night.

One exit ramp at a time will be closed between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. the following morning so crews can install breakdown lanes along the side of the ramps.

The detour for drivers from westbound I-440 will take drivers to I-40 to turn around and come back to Jones Franklin Road.

Eastbound drivers will follow a detour to Hillsborough Street to turn around and come back to exit at Jones Franklin Road.

The closures are weather dependent and subject to change.

Motorists are reminded to slow down and pay extra attention as they travel through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 29, 2020, 06:58:28 PM
Apparently House Speaker Timmy Moore is reading my posts about the Shelby bypass. Better late than never, I guess.

How Shelby bypass project could drive development in region - WSOC (https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/how-shelby-bypass-project-could-drive-development-region/6LPN6UF4ZVBFBJLYJAVV5NYOHI/)
Full article from Charlotte Business Journal with potential pay wall: How the Shelby bypass project could affect development in Cleveland County (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/02/20/how-the-shelby-bypass-project-could-affect.html)
Question: What is the status of sections A/AB/B of the bypass, from US 74 West to NC 226? They were to open by the end of 2019, I think?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 29, 2020, 08:39:29 PM
My assistant manager was at both the West end of the bypass and the 226 interchange on Friday, said both has the concrete work done.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 29, 2020, 09:41:53 PM
The AB/B section was supposed to be open to traffic by September 15, but that didn't happen. Pavement markings were down on the western end in January. I think they may have been down as far back as November.  1) All the rain the past couple of years kept delaying things and 2) I think they ended up having to do a lot more re-grading than expected (again, rain) since the morons at NCDOT decided to have two separate projects for this one section, leaving the graded roadway unpaved for 1-2 years until the next contract for R-2707F was let.

How many other highway projects call for seeding grass on the roadway instead of paving? They even dug run-off ditches across the future roadway. Absolutely absurd.

Dec 2016: https://goo.gl/maps/QUDjFNMBFvQoWQ8D6
May 2018: https://goo.gl/maps/bHBcmAGt2GnUD9aZ6
https://goo.gl/maps/sWgYu4Xtfow7PVYm9
https://goo.gl/maps/csyXnXB9mCNdzLUYA
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 02, 2020, 06:04:32 PM
Supporting documents for the US 74 INFRA grant application can be found on this page (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Pages/default.aspx).

Pages 3 and 4 of the supplemental design document (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/US%2074%20CORESI_Grant_Application_Supplemental_Design.pdf) (94 MB file) show the conceptual designs for two alternatives for STIP project R-4045. The designs appear to be part of a feasibility study that is underway or recently completed for upgrading US 74 from I-26 to I-85 (Express FS-1812A). The FS doesn't appear to be available on NCDOT's website yet.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49610819433_64d0db7a14_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49610819433_b3130aba6c_h.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 03, 2020, 10:59:56 AM
A contract to replace the expansion joints on the I-95 bridges over the Roanoke River has been awarded. Completion is expected by December.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-03-northampton-county-i-95-bridges.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-03-northampton-county-i-95-bridges.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 03, 2020, 11:05:14 AM
A contract to replace the expansion joints on the I-95 bridges over the Roanoke River has been awarded. Completion is expected by December.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-03-northampton-county-i-95-bridges.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-03-northampton-county-i-95-bridges.aspx)
At least common sense prevailed and they suspended lane closures during the summer months. That would be a nightmare if they didn’t.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 06, 2020, 11:27:19 AM
Eric Boyette has replaced Jim Trogdon as NCDOT Secretary.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-06-this-week-ncdot.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-06-this-week-ncdot.aspx)

Can't help but wonder if Jim's sudden 'retirement' had anything to do with NCDOT's funding problems...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 06, 2020, 11:59:43 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-06-basnight-bridge-lane-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-06-basnight-bridge-lane-closures.aspx)

Quote
​NAGS HEAD — Daytime lane closures in the work zone around the Marc Basnight Bridge in Dare County will resume March 9.

During the lane closures, workers will complete “punch list" items on the bridge project, including finishing touches to the bridge deck and railings, and paving the final asphalt layer on the roadway leading up to the bridge itself.

Motorists should be aware of the possibility of daytime lane closures at any time from 7 a.m. Mondays through 3 p.m. Fridays. During the lane closures, contractors will use flaggers to control traffic and post appropriate warning signs. Lane closures will vary in length but will typically be between a half-mile and one mile long. One lane of traffic will be open at all times. Drivers are urged to slow down and use caution while crews are at work.

The work is expected to be complete by mid-June.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 09, 2020, 12:53:27 PM
Upcoming overnight closures on I-40 in southeast Wake County due to the widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-i-40-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-i-40-overnight-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 09, 2020, 02:24:03 PM
Upcoming overnight closures on I-40 in southeast Wake County due to the widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-i-40-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-09-i-40-overnight-closures.aspx)
Another press release about the 'I-40/I-440' interchange without a mention of I-87. This may be okay for I-40 West traffic since the signage for the exit does not list I-87, but heading east it does. At least the detour link they provide does list heading on I-87/I-440 to reach Poole Road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 11, 2020, 06:17:50 PM
I-40 will be reduced to 1 lane in each direction near Mocksville in Davie County to provide for replacing a bridge over Hunting Creek. The closing will last all summer (through mid November).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: csw on March 11, 2020, 06:18:34 PM
Not sure where else to post this, but I thought it was worth mentioning - I drove I-74/US 74 from I-95 to Rockingham today and I laughed at how there are signs up within about 30 miles of each other denoting the highway as both the "American Indian Highway" and the "Andrew Jackson Highway". Can't have it both ways - I think someone needs an American history refresher.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 12, 2020, 06:53:56 PM
Not sure where else to post this, but I thought it was worth mentioning - I drove I-74/US 74 from I-95 to Rockingham today and I laughed at how there are signs up within about 30 miles of each other denoting the highway as both the "American Indian Highway" and the "Andrew Jackson Highway". Can't have it both ways - I think someone needs an American history refresher.
It's not unusual for the NC Legislature to rename highways that already have names. According to Wikipedia, in 1963 the entire length of US 74 in North Carolina was named the Andrew Jackson Highway. But the Lumbee tribe didn't care for that at all and in 2001 they persuaded the Legislature to rename the section in Robeson County as the American Indian Highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 16, 2020, 03:59:15 PM
Overnight closures planned for I-40 East at the southeast interchange with I-440/I-87.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-16-i-40-east-closure-i-440-split.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-16-i-40-east-closure-i-440-split.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 18, 2020, 09:29:06 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-18-tentative-schedule-slocum-gate-construction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-18-tentative-schedule-slocum-gate-construction.aspx)

Quote
​HAVELOCK — Contract crews in Craven County have a set a tentative work schedule to finalize construction on the bridge into Slocum Gate.

Starting at 9 a.m. March 19, one lane of east or west U.S. 70 will be closed at certain times throughout the day from just north of Hickman Hill Loop Road to the light at the Wal-Mart. During the closures, contractors will complete construction work such as applying new asphalt and pavement markings.

The schedule, which is weather dependent, is as follows:

9 a.m.-3 p.m. March 19-20 (inside lane)
7 p.m. March 20 through 5 a.m. March 23
8 a.m.-dusk March 23-26

The N.C. Department of Transportation began building the overpass in August 2017 and it opened to traffic in December 2019. It’s a $24.4 million project that is expected to reduce traffic congestion and improve safety.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2020, 01:03:33 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-17-nc-quick-pass-temporary-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-17-nc-quick-pass-temporary-closure.aspx)

Quote
RALEIGH —To protect public health during the COVID-19 response, NC Quick Pass walk-in locations will be temporarily closed to customers effective at 5 p.m. today and extending until further notice.

NC Quick Pass is the N.C. Turnpike Authority's all-electronic toll-collection program on the Triangle Expressway, the Monroe Expressway and Interstate 77 Express Lanes.

The customer service call center and online services remain available, although customers may experience longer than usual wait times.

As a reminder, visit ncquickpass.com to:

-pay a toll bill
-update an account
-add funds to an account
-or open a new account

During this time, NC Quick Pass will be taking the necessary precautions to deep clean all customer service centers in preparation for reopening. To stay up-to-date on developments surrounding COVID-19 please refer to the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services' web page devoted to the virus: www.ncdhhs.gov/coronavirus.

To learn more about the Turnpike Authority or NC Quick Pass, please visit ncdot.gov/turnpike or ncquickpass.com.​
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 19, 2020, 05:34:00 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-19-i-40-west-closure-us-70-business.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-19-i-40-west-closure-us-70-business.aspx)

Quote
​GARNER — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning a series of closures on westbound Interstate 40 near U.S. 70 Business (Exit 306) as part of the widening project from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Tonight and tomorrow, between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. the next morning, traffic will be stopped for up to 30 minutes at a time as crews take down overhead signs.

The overhead signs are being removed to allow for the widening of I-40 and installation of new signs.

Drivers should allow extra time and pay extra attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 20, 2020, 12:26:29 PM
Because of Covid-19, should they just make the toll lanes free or simply close them?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on March 22, 2020, 06:05:30 PM
Because of Covid-19, should they just make the toll lanes free or simply close them?

Why? It's not like there is a mass evacuation. We came through Charlotte on Friday (heading to Florida for the birth of our grandchild before it isn't possible) and there wasn't much traffic for midday. It was nice to use the express lane to avoid the slower traffic that was there, especially to get around the messy merge with I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 23, 2020, 04:17:21 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-117 in Goldsboro between US-70 and US-70 Bypass. Completion is set for fall 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx)

As someone that used to live there, I certainly have no complaints.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on March 24, 2020, 11:46:57 AM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-117 in Goldsboro between US-70 and US-70 Bypass. Completion is set for fall 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx)

As someone that used to live there, I certainly have no complaints.

I bet if you did a study on what cities under 100,000 got the most NCDOT funding, Goldsboro would have to be on top! You already have I-795 as a good northern route in that part of the town. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 26, 2020, 01:19:57 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-117 in Goldsboro between US-70 and US-70 Bypass. Completion is set for fall 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx)

As someone that used to live there, I certainly have no complaints.

I bet if you did a study on what cities under 100,000 got the most NCDOT funding, Goldsboro would have to be on top! You already have I-795 as a good northern route in that part of the town.

It's more of a safety project for local traffic, of which there is still a good deal of. NCDOT has been doing away with suicide lanes in recent years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 26, 2020, 01:22:13 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-26-lenoir-county-highway-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-26-lenoir-county-highway-closure.aspx)

Quote
​KINSTON — A section of a Lenoir County highway is scheduled to close this weekend as N.C. Department of Transportation contractors continue work on the C.F. Harvey Parkway extension project.

N.C. 58 will close in both directions just north of the intersection at N.C. 148 beginning at 7 p.m. March 27. The highway will reopen by 6 a.m. March 30. During the closure, crews will install concrete bridge girders.

Drivers will use the following detours:

N.C. 58 South traffic will use Taylor Heath Road, Hugo Road to N.C. 58

N.C. 58 North traffic will use Hugo Road, Taylor Heath Road to N.C. 58 

To access N.C. 148 from N.C. 58 South: Taylor Heath Road, Hugo Road, N.C. 58 to N.C. 148

N.C. 148 can still be accessed from N.C. 58 North. 

Drivers should expect their commute to take extra time and plan ahead. NCDOT also urges those driving in the area to slow down and use caution around crews.

By extending C.F Harvey Parkway​ by 5.8 miles, connectivity will improve in northern Kinston between U.S. 70, N.C. 58 and N.C. 11. The $73.5 million project is expected to be substantially complete in 2021, with vegetation work finishing in 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2020, 08:11:52 PM
While the US-64 Asheboro Bypass won't be open for at least a few more months, Tom Allen, who has doing drone flyovers of different segments of the project since the beginning, actually got an opportunity to drive the length of the road.


No signage has been posted yet, except at the I-73 / I-74 interchange, as seen in the thumbnail. The control city for US-64 east is Siler City, and the bypass has a standard US-64 designation, not By-Pass. The old route through Asheboro will become US-64 Business.

Neat video and to see it from the driver's perspective.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 30, 2020, 03:28:39 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-30-i-40-east-closure-bridge-work.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-30-i-40-east-closure-bridge-work.aspx)

Quote
​RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning several overnight closures this week as part of the widening of Interstate 40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Overnight Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, from 11 p.m. until 5 a.m. the next morning, I-40 East will be closed at Exit 301 (I-440 West). A detour will lead drivers to take the exit and proceed to Poole Road (Exit 15) to turn around and take Exit 16 to get back on I-40 East.

These closures will allow for structural steel to be set on the new flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East.

Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour and pay attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 30, 2020, 05:40:43 PM
Per the documents (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf) for the upcoming Board of Transportation meeting, it looks like the Shelby Bypass is being de-delayed by utilizing Build NC Bonds to fund construction. Construction was originally scheduled for FY 2021, delayed to 2024, and is now scheduled for FY 22. I'm not sure why section D has doubled in cost, though, unless the old STIP estimates were off.

Also, it looks like the Mid-Currituck Bridge is delayed to next year due to a lawsuit. Has that been discussed already?

Of course a lot of projects could be facing uncertain futures until we know what the economic fallout is going to be from the pandemic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 30, 2020, 06:16:34 PM
Per the documents (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf) for the upcoming Board of Transportation meeting, it looks like the Shelby Bypass is being de-delayed by utilizing Build NC Bonds to fund construction. Construction was originally scheduled for FY 2021, delayed to 2024, and is now scheduled for FY 22. I'm not sure why section D has doubled in cost, though, unless the old STIP estimates were off.

Also, it looks like the Mid-Currituck Bridge is delayed to next year due to a lawsuit. Has that been discussed already?

Of course a lot of projects could be facing uncertain futures until we know what the economic fallout is going to be from the pandemic.
Also from the new STIP Revisions list: I-42 related construction along US 70 north of the Havelock Bypass is being delayed from 2020 to 2021 along with US 70 pavement rehabilitation in Lenoir County. Pavement rehabilitation and bridge rehab along US 64 in Nash County has been delayed from 2020 and 2021 to 2021 and 2022. The first project of the I-74 upgrade project from NC 41 to US 76 is listed, contract (I-6011A), that will construct a grade separation for US 74 (Future I-74) at Creek Road in Robeson County, to start in 2027. As part of converting the Chauncey Town Road intersection on US 74/76 in Columbus County to an interchange in 2022 they will construct a temporary reduced conflict intersection later this year at a cost of $2.4 million. And the eastern section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, between US 421 and I-40, has been delayed from 2020 to 2021.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 31, 2020, 12:32:56 AM
Highways connect eastern North Carolina to the future (https://www.reflector.com/news/highways-connect-eastern-north-carolina-to-the-future/article_59c435e1-bf4b-5315-b28d-8edab6b097dd.html)
Quote
Three future interstate highways will further streamline existing eastern North Carolina corridors and will continue spurring economic development and population growth in the region during the next several decades, according to developers and transportation officials. These routes are future Interstate 87 between Raleigh and Norfolk, future I-587 between Zebulon and Greenville and future I-42 between Raleigh and Morehead City.

There are no accurate projections of when these highways will become fully completed interstates, since they are funded and scheduled for construction or improvement in sections that compete for priority, officials said. However, simply the promise of relatively continual upgrading of these routes to interstate standards over time is enough to quicken the pulse of economic development efforts in the counties and regions through which they pass. What are now rural, largely agricultural areas of eastern North Carolina will inevitably become better connected to highway networks, seaport facilities and rail terminals serving prosperous population centers throughout the eastern United States and beyond.

In some areas, like North Carolina’s Crystal Coast – accessible by U.S. 70/Future I-42 – population will almost surely increase and generate a wave of related economic investment along with growth management challenges. In others, vitality-sapping population declines over recent decades will hopefully be diminished through the creation of many new jobs in advanced manufacturing, food processing, logistics and other infrastructure-dependent enterprises feeding off the new future interstates.

“Ninety percent of all new job creation takes place along these type corridors,”  said Christian Lockamy, a former Greenville economic developer who is now director of the Elizabeth City-Pasquotank County Economic Development Authority. “All three of these future eastern North Carolina interstate thruways have driven a lot of looks at our region from companies we’ve been working to attract. As a result, businesses and industrial parks are increasing significantly along the routes.”

Norfolk to Raleigh

Future I-87 from Raleigh to Norfolk will be the longest of the three routes at about 213 miles. The 180-mile North Carolina portion will follow present U.S. 64 east from Raleigh through Rocky Mount to Williamston, where it will turn toward the north and follow present U.S. 17 past Edenton and Elizabeth City to the state line. In Virginia, future I-87 will join interstates 64 and 464 in the vicinity of Norfolk and the Port of Virginia.

Even though it’s widely estimated that future I-87 could take as long as 30 years to be brought to full interstate status, the existing multi-lane roadway from Raleigh to Norfolk is already a big selling point.

“We’re blessed to have future I-87, in addition to I-95, as a conduit to get our clients’ products to the end user quickly, efficiently and when the customer wants them,”  said Norris Tolson, president of the Rocky Mount-based Carolinas Gateway Partnership, an economic development group that focuses on Nash and Edgecombe counties. “Even now on present U.S. 64 and U.S. 17, the Norfolk port is within a two-hour drive from Rocky Mount, while the ports at Morehead City and Wilmington are both only two hours and fifteen minutes away. That makes the Rocky Mount area a great logistical hub – especially when you add in the new CCX intermodal rail terminal here that will become operational in January 2021.”

“As future I-87 is upgraded to full interstate status in the coming years, Nash and Edgecombe counties can only become even more attractive as an advanced manufacturing, food processing and logistics center,”  Tolson said.

To cite just one example of what is happening already, Triangle Tyre selected Edgecombe County in 2018 for its first U.S. manufacturing facility. The Chinese tire manufacturing company will create 800 jobs and is investing nearly $580 million at a 1,449-acre advanced manufacturing megasite site located near Tarboro and just off future I-87. The project will contribute an estimated $2.4 billion to North Carolina’s economy.

When future I-87 was signed into law and announced at the end of 2015, initial preliminary estimates were that the total cost of the route would be around $1 billion. But according to more recent information released by the N.C. Department of Transportation, estimates now range from $1.7 billion to nearly $2 billion. Approximate calculations of the cost of improvements to the section between Raleigh and Williamston range from $845 million to $1 billion. The preliminary estimates for upgrading the portion from Williamston to the Virginia border vary from $850 million to $945 million. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost of interstate construction.

The only portion of I-87 now finished and in operation as a completed interstate is a 13-mile stretch in eastern Wake County between Raleigh and Wendell. (That makes I-87 the nation’s shortest current interstate highway.) Around three miles coincides with the Raleigh beltline (I-440), while the next 10 miles is known as the Knightdale Bypass, which extends as far as Wendell.

According to the DOT, improvements to bring future I-87 from Wendell eastward to Zebulon up to interstate standards, mostly through widening outside lane shoulders and upgrading some interchanges, are scheduled to begin in 2026. There is no firm timetable for how long that overall process may take.

Although no design work has yet been done on future I-87 east of the Wake-Nash county line, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring the roadway up to interstate standards. Existing paved shoulders will need to be widened, some bridges will have to be replaced and some interchanges will have to be improved to meet modern requirements – lengthening on-ramp lanes, for example. Certain segments on present U.S. 17 that still have intersecting side roads and driveways, traffic lights and other characteristics will have to be re-engineered or bypassed entirely. Some stretches of U.S. 17/Future I-87 around Windsor, Edenton and Elizabeth City, however, already meet most interstate standards.

“I’ve been working on I-87 for 15 years, and I always tell people we shouldn’t be amazed at how long interstate highways take to complete, but rather that they get built at all,”  laughed Joe Milazzo with the Regional Transportation Alliance in Raleigh. “But bit by bit, they do get built. And those red, white and blue signs – even the ones that say ”˜future’ – are remarkable things, providing not only branding but focus for advocacy by local leaders and developers.

“Interstates won’t ”˜make’ a region by themselves, since land, workforce and other infrastructure are also vital, but they do provide the opportunity to at least participate in the broader economic development game,”  Milazzo said.

Greenville spur

Future I-587, announced by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in late 2016, will run from future I-87 at Zebulon east to Greenville along an upgraded U.S. 264. Once future I-87 was approved and announced, officials and economic developers from the Greenville area lobbied the state and federal agencies for a spur route on behalf of the city. This rural freeway joins Raleigh to both Wilson and Greenville, as well as overlaying I-795 between I-95 and its continuation south to Goldsboro.

There is now a funded contract for two separate projects in Greene and Pitt counties related to upgrading U.S. 264 to interstate standards, according to Cadmus Capehart, Division Construction Engineer for North Carolina DOT’s Division 2. Both involve widening outside lane shoulders from four to 10 feet, as required for interstate highways, and both will take place in conjunction with a process of rehabilitating the pavement through strengthening and resurfacing. These two projects, totaling approximately $22.5 million, should be complete in late 2020 or early 2021.

These improvements will still not bring Pitt and Greene counties totally up to interstate standards because there will still have to be more work in the future on bridges to bring them into compliance with vertical clearance and required length of on and off ramps. Altogether, it’s estimated that $100 million will eventually be needed to bring the entire route from Zebulon to Greenville up to interstate standards.

“Greenville was the largest city in North Carolina without an interstate connection until I-587 was approved,”  said Vann Rogerson, interim director and CEO of the N.C. East Alliance. “Now, though, Pitt County can be presented to potential clients as well situated for going back up toward Raleigh, up Interstate 95 and up toward the Port of Virginia via the connection near Bethel with I-87.”

“Now it’s vital that we stay behind future I-587 and the other future interstates in the region to make sure they – and our local economy – remain competitive as far as the process of setting funding priorities is concerned,”  he added.

Economic catalyst

U.S. 70, the existing four-lane highway between the Raleigh area and Morehead City, is also undergoing upgrading and will eventually become I-42. The future interstate basically follows the U.S. 70 corridor in a southeasterly direction, connecting Garner, Clayton, Smithfield, Selma, Goldsboro, Kinston, New Bern and Havelock with Morehead City and its state port facilities. I-42 will actually terminate near the Carteret County line in the vicinity of Newport and will not enter Morehead City, although some congestion-clearing bridge construction near the port itself is part of the long-range transportation plan in the city.

Cutting travel time between Raleigh and the Morehead City-Beaufort area from three hours to a little more than two, the 137-mile roadway will function as a less congested hurricane evacuation route. It will become an improved freight-hauling corridor and will connect Seymour Johnson Air Force base and Cherry Point Marine Air Station, as well as Kinston’s Global TransPark, to the interstate highway system.

Several new U.S. 70/Future I-42 segments are already complete, including the bypass around the north side of Goldsboro, but others will not materialize until after at least another decade of work.

A 32-mile stretch of the highway between Dover, east of Kinston, and New Bern is undergoing widening of the outer lane shoulders to bring the route up to interstate standards, along with strengthening and resurfacing of the pavement. This project began in 2019 and will continue through 2020.

Beginning at the southern end of the Neuse and Trent River bridges in New Bern, a 4.5 mile stretch of now-congested roadway in the vicinity of the New Bern airport will soon be under construction to eliminate five traffic-signal intersections through the construction of elevated interchanges. This work, locally known as the “James City Project,”  is set to begin in March of 2021, with completion planned for late 2023.

Future I-42 will follow a new bypass just begun around the west side of Havelock in Craven County, with completion scheduled for early 2024. Stoplights in Havelock and the resulting traffic backups have long been a source of frustration for travelers in this area.

“Within five years, there will be no stoplights at all between Dover just outside Kinston and the Carteret County line,”  said Carteret County Economic Development Director Don Kirkman.

The last major piece leading to completion of future I-42 will be the bypass looping around the south side of Kinston. A small piece of this project is scheduled to begin in 2026, but construction will not begin on the larger portion of the route until 2029.

“It’s going to take us a while to get there, but I-42 will obviously be a game changer for Carteret County,”  said Kirkman. “But beyond that, I think this entire corridor is going to be transformational – a huge economic catalyst for all of central eastern North Carolina.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 02, 2020, 04:37:31 PM
Of course a lot of projects could be facing uncertain futures until we know what the economic fallout is going to be from the pandemic.

And the dominoes begin to fall....

As coronavirus keeps people home, North Carolina gas and sales tax revenues plummet (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article241708981.html)

"The N.C. Department of Transportation will lose more than a third of its expected revenue over the next three months because of the coronavirus outbreak, according to Bobby Lewis, the department’s chief operating officer. Lewis told the Board of Transportation on Thursday that NCDOT will receive up to $200 million less in revenue than it had counted on by July 1."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 03, 2020, 12:22:52 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-03-i-40-aviation-reopening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-03-i-40-aviation-reopening.aspx)

Quote
​MORRISVILLE — N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews have reached a significant milestone on the project to improve the Interstate 40 interchange at Aviation Parkway.

On Sunday afternoon, traffic is scheduled to shift onto the western half of the new Aviation Parkway bridge over I-40. The eastern half of the bridge will be built after the old bridge is removed.

At this same time, the ramp from I-40 East to Aviation Parkway (Exit 285) and the loop from southbound Aviation Parkway to I-40 East will reopen, nearly two weeks ahead of schedule. The ramp and loop had been closed since Feb. 16 as tie-ins were made to the new bridge alignment.

Also opening will be the new exit loop from I-40 West to southbound Aviation Parkway. Instead of everyone wanting to access Aviation Parkway sharing the same exit ramp, drivers wanting to go south will pass under the Aviation Parkway bridge and immediately exit to the right onto the new loop. There will be a traffic signal at the end of the loop ramp, but both lanes of traffic will be able to make a right turn only onto the southbound lanes.

Northbound drivers heading toward RDU Airport will exit the same way they have been using a free-flow lane onto Aviation Parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 06, 2020, 05:54:57 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-06-i-40-i-440-split-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-06-i-40-i-440-split-closure.aspx)

Quote
RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning overnight closures at the junction of Interstate 40 and Interstate 440 this week as part of the widening of I-40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Tonight and the next two nights from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. the next morning, access from I-440 East to I-40 West is scheduled to be closed.

A detour will direct drivers to continue onto I-40 East (Exit 16) to Exit 303 (Jones Sausage Road) to turn around and take I-40 West.

The closures will allow for the demolition of a temporary bridge used during the Fortify project.

​Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour route and pay attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 09, 2020, 04:20:08 PM
The McCrimmon Parkway extension from Airport Blvd to Aviation Parkway in Morrisville is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-09-mccrimmon-pkwy-extension-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-09-mccrimmon-pkwy-extension-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 13, 2020, 12:38:17 PM
A segment of the Shelby Bypass (to NC 226) is to open on Tuesday, the next (to NC 150) in 2022:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hockeyjohn on April 13, 2020, 01:17:48 PM
A segment of the Shelby Bypass (to NC 226) is to open on Tuesday, the next (to NC 150) in 2022:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx)

Does the Shelby By-pass have any interim designation (e.g.  NC 974) since the last segment is not scheduled for completion until 2024?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 13, 2020, 01:31:42 PM
A segment of the Shelby Bypass (to NC 226) is to open on Tuesday, the next (to NC 150) in 2022:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-13-shelby-bypass-segment-opens.aspx)

Does the Shelby By-pass have any interim designation (e.g.  NC 974) since the last segment is not scheduled for completion until 2024?

According to the signage plans for the section to NC 150, no, at least not signed. There won't be any route markers at all, not even a "To US 74 WEST" at NC 150, for instance.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 13, 2020, 06:03:22 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 13, 2020, 06:04:23 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
It took Tennessee over 13 years on a 6 mile segment of I-69  :bigass: Mississippi built a 3 mile segment of a US-82 Greenville bypass 10 years ago, it’s still not paved.

Given NCDOT’s track record though, it certainly is unusual. Hopefully going forth, we don’t see anymore more delays like this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 13, 2020, 08:43:17 PM
On Wednesday, I have to go to/from Forest City via Casar and Polksville, will endeavor to get a review of this segment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 13, 2020, 09:39:16 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
Given NCDOT’s track record though, it certainly is unusual. Hopefully going forth, we don’t see anymore more delays like this.

IIRC, NCDOT had taken funding that had been set aside for the bypass and shifted it towards completing I-485 when then-governor Beverly Perdue pushed for the urban loops across the state.

This was before the current scoring formula, so a lot of funding back then was heavily driven by politics. When construction on the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass began in 2008, Wayne County was suddenly told that the entire bypass wouldn't be finished until sometime in the 2030's. That did NOT go over well. Long story short, a few arms got twisted and everything was put back on track.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 13, 2020, 10:21:33 PM
That's the problem, for years the wealthy business interests really did not want this bypass until one day, they woke up to a cluster truck on Dixon Bl.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 12:24:27 PM
I tweeted NCDOT yesterday in regards to the interim designation on the Shelby Bypass, in addition to the completion date of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass.

Per them, the interim designation will be SR-9000, and the bypass will be completed in the fall.

https://twitter.com/ncdot/status/1250056019625029642
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 14, 2020, 12:53:01 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-14-i-40-east-closures-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-14-i-40-east-closures-traffic-shift.aspx)

Quote
RALEIGH — N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are planning several closures this weekend as part of the widening of Interstate 40 from Southeast Raleigh to Clayton.

Beginning Friday at 8 p.m., crews will close the ramps to and from I-40 East at Jones Sausage Road (Exit 303). Detours will direct drivers to U.S. 70 at White Oak Crossing to access I-40 East and Jones Sausage Road.

The flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East will also be closed for the weekend. A detour will lead drivers onto I-40 West to Exit 298A to take U.S. 401 South and U.S. 70 East through Garner to access I-40 East.

I-40 East will be down to one open lane between mile markers 301 and 306 during the following times:

8 p.m. Friday to 10 a.m. Saturday
6 p.m. Saturday to 10 a.m. Sunday
6 p.m. Sunday to 5 a.m. Monday

​While two lanes of I-40 East will be open from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, drivers should find alternate routes if possible.

The closures are needed as new pavement tie-ins are made at Jones Sausage Road and the flyover bridge, and as I-40 East traffic is shifted into a temporary pattern closer to the median barrier wall on new pavement between mile markers 301 and 306.

Work is scheduled to be completed by Monday at 5 a.m., weather permitting.

Drivers should allow extra time to navigate the detour and pay attention while driving through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 14, 2020, 06:21:41 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
It took Tennessee over 13 years on a 6 mile segment of I-69  :bigass: Missouri built a 3 mile segment of a US-82 Greenville bypass 10 years ago, it’s still not paved.

Given NCDOT’s track record though, it certainly is unusual. Hopefully going forth, we don’t see anymore more delays like this.
That was Mississippi that built a 3 mile segment of a US-82 Greenville bypass 10 years ago and it’s still not paved. US 82 does not pass through Missouri.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 14, 2020, 06:22:29 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
It took Tennessee over 13 years on a 6 mile segment of I-69  :bigass: Missouri built a 3 mile segment of a US-82 Greenville bypass 10 years ago, it’s still not paved.

Given NCDOT’s track record though, it certainly is unusual. Hopefully going forth, we don’t see anymore more delays like this.
That was Mississippi that built a 3 mile segment of a US-82 Greenville bypass 10 years ago and it’s still not paved. US 82 does not pass through Missouri.
That's correct, Mississippi, not Missouri.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 14, 2020, 09:27:47 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.
Given NCDOT’s track record though, it certainly is unusual. Hopefully going forth, we don’t see anymore more delays like this.

IIRC, NCDOT had taken funding that had been set aside for the bypass and shifted it towards completing I-485 when then-governor Beverly Perdue pushed for the urban loops across the state.

This was before the current scoring formula, so a lot of funding back then was heavily driven by politics. When construction on the US-70 Goldsboro Bypass began in 2008, Wayne County was suddenly told that the entire bypass wouldn't be finished until sometime in the 2030's. That did NOT go over well. Long story short, a few arms got twisted and everything was put back on track.

Politics? What politics?

During some of my inquiring about the lengthy timeline of this project, I was told that the now shelved Garden Parkway also caused delays for the Shelby Bypass. Even though it was a turnpike project, it still pulled from the overall pot of money allocated for Division 12 and funding had to be set aside for the parkway for planning and fiscal purposes. Due to the equity formula, the division ended up only having enough funding for one big project and not two, and the Garden Parkway was prioritized by Pittenger and Co. who were set to profit off their real estate purchases around the proposed exits.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jcarte29 on April 14, 2020, 09:53:06 PM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.


That's about the same track they have going on W-S First section of I-74, and frankly half the distance! (Dec '14 started I think??)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 12:21:16 AM
Congratulations, NCDOT. It took you nearly six years to build the first 5.6 miles of an 18.5 mile bypass. You must be proud.


That's about the same track they have going on W-S First section of I-74, and frankly half the distance! (Dec '14 started I think??)
Quote
Construction of the first leg of the beltway from I-40 Business to US 158, Project U-2579B commenced in October 2014 with an anticipated completion date of November 2018. Since then funding has been allocated to complete the remaining sections to be signed Interstate 74 between current Interstate 74 cosigned with US 311 and US 52. Starting with the segment between US 158 and US 311 known as Project U-2579C in October 2017. Next the sections between Interstate 74 and I-40 Business known as Projects U-2579AA and U-2579AB are scheduled to begin in November 2020. The final sections from US 311 to SR 2211 (Baux Mountain Road), Project U-2579D; SR 2211 to NC 8 (Germanton Road), Project U-2579E; NC 8 to East of US 52, Project U-2579F and the Interchange at US 52, Project R-2247EB will commence in October 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston-Salem_Beltway

Was supposed to be completed in November 2018, though as of now, is still not complete. Hopefully it will be completed by the end of the year, and other sections won't see other delays. Hell, maybe they'll wait long enough they can open the first -and- second segments at once.

By the end of 2020, all segments of the I-74 portion (Eastern Loop) should be under construction, and to be complete by 2024 IIRC.

To be completed in different segments, the I-274 portion (Western Loop) should be under construction starting in 2023, with Segment A not beginning until 2029, presumably to be fully completed (I-274 and I-74) before 2035.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/wsnb/Pages/project-highlights.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 15, 2020, 07:34:33 AM
https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/04/14/a-rough-storm-to-weather-construction-companies.html (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/04/14/a-rough-storm-to-weather-construction-companies.html)

"At a meeting last week, officials with NCDOT announced that revenue shortfalls, due in large part to the ongoing pandemic, have required the department to cut the number of currently budgeted construction projects from 131 to 38 for the next fiscal year, representing a drop in future spending from around $2.7 billion to about $670 million."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 15, 2020, 12:07:20 PM
I did drive the Shelby bypass portion this morning, will get you all a report tonight.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on April 15, 2020, 04:45:03 PM
Wow, Asheboro bypass not to be open until the fall!!!  that seems kinda long, considering the YouTube video showed everything was set to open the road in June. (original NCDOT completion date)  Just needs pavement markings, some signs, and the bridge pavement leveled out, I guess the project has some people not working because of COVID-19.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 05:01:23 PM
Then they’ll say it will actually open in June and be “ahead of schedule” .
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 15, 2020, 05:55:04 PM
Completed or opened? It can open to traffic upon substantial completion and there still be punch list items remaining in the contract before it's considered 100% complete.

The Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx) shows 9/20/2020 for completion. Interesting that the completion date of 8/27/2019 in the Construction Progress Report differs from the 11/15/2019 completion in the contract (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-26-2015%20Special%20Central%20Letting/Randolph%20R-2536%20C203617.pdf).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 06:04:43 PM
I tweeted back asking for clarification when it will actually be open for traffic use.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 06:27:00 PM
New segment of bypass open for business (https://www.shelbystar.com/news/20200415/new-segment-of-bypass-open-for-business)
Quote
A segment of the new 74 bypass was opened to drivers Tuesday, with the fresh stretch of asphalt beginning at Peachtree Road on the edge of Lattimore and running to NC 226.

The gently winding road takes drivers under several bridges and past homes and businesses that were previously bordering fields and woods. For years, locals have been witnessing the changing landscape as the new highway was carved out of the red dirt and existing roads were altered.

The 5.6 miles takes drivers from an exit off of US 74 west just outside of Lattimore and connects them to Polkville Road within minutes.

According to a press release from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, work on the $19 million contract, which included paving, grading and the installation of overhead signs, began in April of 2018. Prior work, such as the initial grading and other structures had been completed under an earlier contract.

The next section of the Shelby bypass, from NC 226 to NC 150, is already under construction and expected to be completed in 2022.
Pictures from the new road were included in the article. The speed limit is posted at 65 mph (is North Carolina shy of 70 mph? They posted 70 mph on the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass, and have gone back and upped other sections of US-74 to 70 mph), and the bypass is currently signed as "To NC-226". Exit numbers are in line with what they will be when US-74 is designated on the road. At the US-74 / Bypass split, continuity is still given to the existing road through Shelby where you have to "exit" to use the bypass. In the future, when the bypass is complete fully, continuity will be switched for the bypass and a large APL sign will be assembled (see below).
(https://www.shelbystar.com/storyimage/NC/20200415/NEWS/200419330/EP/1/1/EP-200419330.jpg)
(https://www.shelbystar.com/galleryimage/NC/20200415/NEWS/415009990/PH/0/2/PH-415009990.jpg)
(https://www.shelbystar.com/galleryimage/NC/20200415/NEWS/415009990/PH/0/6/PH-415009990.jpg)

Interim and future / ultimate signage plans - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2018%20Highway%20Letting/01-16-18/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CLEVELAND,%20R2707F,%20C203845/Standard%20PDF%20Plans/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 15, 2020, 06:45:56 PM
The other exit is 199, NC226, Polksville Rd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 15, 2020, 06:50:33 PM
The other exit is 199, NC226, Polksville Rd.
Interestingly enough, per the signage plans, the only signage for the bypass is "To NC-226" at the US-74 interchange. At the Washburn Switch Rd and NC-226 junctions, the only indication is for westbound and is merely an "Asheville" control city, no "To US-74" or anything. Eastbound at the Washburn Switch Rd junction has no "To NC-226" signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 15, 2020, 07:51:02 PM
The other exit is 199, NC226, Polksville Rd.
Interestingly enough, per the signage plans, the only signage for the bypass is "To NC-226" at the US-74 interchange. At the Washburn Switch Rd and NC-226 junctions, the only indication is for westbound and is merely an "Asheville" control city, no "To US-74" or anything. Eastbound at the Washburn Switch Rd junction has no "To NC-226" signage.

Even when completed to NC 150, there won't be any "To US 74" indicators. I don't know if they'll change the sign from "To NC 226" to "To NC 150," though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on April 16, 2020, 12:48:32 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3W8sNny.png)

Something I just found buried in the signage plans for R-2707F (the contract for paving and opening the first real segment of the Shelby Bypass that just opened) is reference to a planned interchange at Mooresboro for US 74 Business. Such a project seemingly would complete the last non-freeway segment of US 74 between I-26 and I-85 unaccounted for by the Shelby Bypass project. Does anyone know of the timeframe for the project or even what STIP number it has? I tried to find more infrormation about it, but searches for "US 74 Mooresboro interchange NC" or similar get drowned out by references to Mooresboro as the western end of the Shelby Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2020, 01:02:33 PM
A section of NC-11 north of Kinston will be closed in both directions between 7pm Friday and 6am Monday due to the Harvey Parkway extension project. Detours are listed in the press release.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-20-lenoir-county-highway-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-20-lenoir-county-highway-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 16, 2020, 01:12:12 PM
Completed or opened? It can open to traffic upon substantial completion and there still be punch list items remaining in the contract before it's considered 100% complete.

The Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx) shows 9/20/2020 for completion. Interesting that the completion date of 8/27/2019 in the Construction Progress Report differs from the 11/15/2019 completion in the contract (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-26-2015%20Special%20Central%20Letting/Randolph%20R-2536%20C203617.pdf).
Got a response from NCDOT.

The bypass will open to traffic in the fall, full completion will be months after that.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1250783587496050688
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 16, 2020, 01:30:26 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3W8sNny.png)

Something I just found buried in the signage plans for R-2707F (the contract for paving and opening the first real segment of the Shelby Bypass that just opened) is reference to a planned interchange at Mooresboro for US 74 Business. Such a project seemingly would complete the last non-freeway segment of US 74 between I-26 and I-85 unaccounted for by the Shelby Bypass project. Does anyone know of the timeframe for the project or even what STIP number it has? I tried to find more infrormation about it, but searches for "US 74 Mooresboro interchange NC" or similar get drowned out by references to Mooresboro as the western end of the Shelby Bypass.
Project R‐4045 - Unfunded 2020 - 2029 STIP - Construct an interchange at SR-1168 Lattimore Rd / realigned US-74 Business, and would also upgrade that small gap to freeway standards in the process - though those narrow bridges over Sandy Run would be retained.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Prioritization%20Data/Congestion%20Management%20Project%20Information%20(P5.0,%20P4.0,%20P3.0)/H150527-P5-12-Cleveland-TTS-Summary.pdf
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7875/46257582145_fbe3981437_o.png
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2020, 06:38:30 PM
Upcoming lane closures on I-40 due to new signs being installed as part of the Winston-Salem Business 40 project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-16-i-40-lane-closures-greensboro.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-16-i-40-lane-closures-greensboro.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 16, 2020, 08:21:33 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/3W8sNny.png)

Something I just found buried in the signage plans for R-2707F (the contract for paving and opening the first real segment of the Shelby Bypass that just opened) is reference to a planned interchange at Mooresboro for US 74 Business. Such a project seemingly would complete the last non-freeway segment of US 74 between I-26 and I-85 unaccounted for by the Shelby Bypass project. Does anyone know of the timeframe for the project or even what STIP number it has? I tried to find more infrormation about it, but searches for "US 74 Mooresboro interchange NC" or similar get drowned out by references to Mooresboro as the western end of the Shelby Bypass.
Project R‐4045 - Unfunded 2020 - 2029 STIP - Construct an interchange at SR-1168 Lattimore Rd / realigned US-74 Business, and would also upgrade that small gap to freeway standards in the process - though those narrow bridges over Sandy Run would be retained.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Prioritization%20Data/Congestion%20Management%20Project%20Information%20(P5.0,%20P4.0,%20P3.0)/H150527-P5-12-Cleveland-TTS-Summary.pdf
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7875/46257582145_fbe3981437_o.png

Funding for R-4045 was requested in the INFRA Grant application (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/Narrative%20US%2074%20NCDOT.pdf). The supplemental design document (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/US%2074%20CORESI_Grant_Application_Supplemental_Design.pdf) (~90 MB file) for the grant application shows two different alternatives than the 10+ years old public meeting map (pages 3 and 4). Both include a roundabout south of US 74. It looks like they don't want to interfere with the Dollar General.

The bridges over Sandy Run are scheduled to be replaced with a separate project, BR-0012. It is scheduled to be let in April 2021. Another project (B-5876) to replace the bridges over the Second Broad River a little farther west in Rutherford County is scheduled to be let the same month. However, I wouldn't be surprised if those are delayed the way things are going.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/13%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(APRIL%202021).pdf
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Traffic%20Forecasts/BR-0012%20Cleveland%20TF/BR-0012%20Cleveland%202018%20TF.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 16, 2020, 08:49:23 PM
Completed or opened? It can open to traffic upon substantial completion and there still be punch list items remaining in the contract before it's considered 100% complete.

The Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx) shows 9/20/2020 for completion. Interesting that the completion date of 8/27/2019 in the Construction Progress Report differs from the 11/15/2019 completion in the contract (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-26-2015%20Special%20Central%20Letting/Randolph%20R-2536%20C203617.pdf).
Got a response from NCDOT.

The bypass will open to traffic in the fall, full completion will be months after that.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1250783587496050688

Dang. They ARE behind. If I recall correctly, I think they had some issues acquiring right-of-way using the design-build process. If you check out the July 2018 imagery in Google Earth, you can see some odd gaps in the project. One is south of the eastern interchange, and there are a couple others near the Zoo Connector. I mean, what's going on here? Did they just bulldoze through the middle of those chicken houses? That's one way to make an easement.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49782250788_0edb54db9f_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49782250788_9193748bab_k.jpg)

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 17, 2020, 01:07:52 PM
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1251151076075515904
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 17, 2020, 01:51:22 PM
As part of the I-440 improvements project, there will be ramp closures at the Western Blvd interchange this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-17-i-440-east-western-blvd-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-17-i-440-east-western-blvd-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2020, 12:13:14 PM
STC Corridor U (US-74 between I-26 and Wilmington) Master Plan Survey (https://publicinput.com/7828/)

Quote
In 2015, the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) identified a network of key multimodal transportation corridors called Strategic Transportation Corridors (STC) to support smart planning, help set long-term investment decisions, and ensure that North Carolina’s economic prosperity goals are achieved. The STCs are intended to promote transportation system connectivity, provide high levels of mobility, and improve access to important state and regional activity centers. A key element in the advancement of the STCs is the development of corridor master plans, to identify a high-level corridor mobility vision and associated corridor improvement action strategies. NCDOT has initiated the development of a master plan vision for STC U - U.S. 74 from I-26 in Polk County to U.S. 117 in Wilmington.

It's quite clear going through the survey questions where they are headed with this corridor.

Quote
From I-26 to Gastonia, what changes would you like to see on U.S. 74 (I-26 to I-85) and I-85 (U.S. 74 to U.S. 321) in the next 20 years? (Please select all that apply.)

From Gastonia to Monroe, what changes would you like to see on the corridor I-85 (U.S. 321 to I-485) and I-485 (I-85 to U.S. 74) in the next 20 years? (Please select all that apply.)

From Monroe to Wilmington, what changes would you like to see on U.S. 74 in the next 20 years? (Please select all that apply.)

Options (except Gastonia to Monroe)
- Bypasses around cities and towns
- Higher speed limits
- More ways to get on the road
- Tolling
- Fewer traffic signals
- More travel lanes
- More ways to get on the road
- More traffic signals

Options (Gastonia to Monroe)
- Bypasses around cities and towns
- Higher speed limits
- More ways to get on the road
- More travel lanes
- Fewer ways to get on the road
- Tolling

Quote
From I-26 to Gastonia, do you support the preliminary vision of a freeway (access only at interchanges/ramps, speed limit 55 or greater, no traffic signals) on U.S. 74 (I-26 to I-85) and I-85 (U.S. 74 to U.S. 321)?

From Gastonia to Monroe, do you support the preliminary vision of a freeway (access only at interchanges/ramps, speed limit 55 or greater, no traffic signals) on I-85 (U.S. 321 to I-485) and I-485 (I-85 to U.S. 74)?

From Monroe to Wilmington, do you support the preliminary vision of a freeway (access only at interchanges/ramps, speed limit 55 mph or greater, no traffic signals)?

It appears that the vast majority of people (70 - 80%) agree with the vision of a freeway along the entire corridor from I-26 to Wilmington.

NCDOT is currently in the process of surveying different Strategic Transportation Corridors in the state in order to update each ones Master Plan.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/NCTransportationNetwork.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 19, 2020, 07:58:28 PM
Pardon my ignorance but shouldn't the LEFT EXIT 194 sign have a control city of Marion?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 19, 2020, 08:20:06 PM
Pardon my ignorance but shouldn't the LEFT EXIT 194 sign have a control city of Marion?

I would say no, however, I think the Exit 199 signage should say Polkville heading eastbound and when it opens Polkville / Marion westbound.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 21, 2020, 02:13:01 PM
Due to the COVID-19 impact on it's budget, NCDOT is delaying most of it's upcoming projects.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 21, 2020, 05:41:35 PM
Due to the COVID-19 impact on it's budget, NCDOT is delaying most of it's upcoming projects.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx)
Among projects deleted from the current 12-month letting lists are the I-95 widening projects, projects related to building the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, Future I-87 pavement rehabilitation projects, the upgrade of US 70 west of I-540, and the upgrade of US 70 to interstate standards north of the Havelock Bypass. Direct link to the full list of deleted or delayed projects: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Documents/2020-ncdot-project-schedule-change.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Documents/2020-ncdot-project-schedule-change.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 06:01:39 PM
Due to the COVID-19 impact on it's budget, NCDOT is delaying most of it's upcoming projects.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx)
Among projects deleted from the current 12-month letting lists are the I-95 widening projects, projects related to building the western section of the Winston-Salem Northern Beltway, Future I-87 pavement rehabilitation projects, the upgrade of US 70 west of I-540, and the upgrade of US 70 to interstate standards north of the Havelock Bypass. Direct link to the full list of deleted or delayed projects: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Documents/2020-ncdot-project-schedule-change.pdf (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Documents/2020-ncdot-project-schedule-change.pdf)
Interestingly enough, the only segments for the I-95 northern project that were on the "deleted" list was Exit 72 - Exit 73, and Exit 75 - Exit 81, though none of the others also planned to be let in 2020 appear on the Updated 12 Month Lettings page.

Also, when was the southern I-95 project (19 miles of 8 lane widening between Exit 22 and Exit 40) pushed up from 2028 to December 2020? Looks like that might be back for 2026 anyways.



Additionally...

Mid-Currituck Bridge deleted from 10/20 letting
US-17 4-lane widening north of Washington deleted from 12/20 letting
Fayetteville Loop segment deleted from 2/21 letting
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2020, 06:20:02 PM
NCDOT delays two projects in Robeson County because of budget shortfall caused by COVID-19 (https://www.robesonian.com/news/133877/ncdot-delays-two-projects-in-robeson-county-because-of-budget-shortfall-caused-by-covid-19)
Quote
LUMBERTON – Two projects in Robeson County have been delayed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation because of the impact of COVID-19 on transportation and revenue.

The NCDOT is anticipating a shortfall of at least $300 million in its budget for the current fiscal year, which ends June 30, because people across the state have adhered to Gov. Roy Cooper’s stay-at-home order to help stop the spread of the coronavirus, according to the Transportation Department.

The reduced budget has caused the department to adjust its spending priorities and project time lines, said Andrew Barksdale, NCDOT public information officer.

“Additionally, we were planning to start the construction of a roundabout sometime later this year at U.S. 301 and Parkton Tobermory Road,”  Barksdale said. “It’s now going to be fall 2022.”

The start of the Interstate 95 widening project also will be delayed by about six months, Barksdale said.

“That first section was to upgrade and widen I-95 from mile marker 22, north of Carthage Road, to mile marker 40,”  Barksdale said. “Before COVID-19 and the stay-at-home order, we were planning to award a design-build contract for that segment in December 2020.”

After the design was completed, construction would begin about a year later as stated in the contract, he said.

“It’s now going to be June 2021 when we award a design-build project for the segment from mile marker 22 to 40,”  Barksdale said.

More delays on county projects are to be expected because of budget impacts, he said.

An interchange upgrade on Carthage Road, which is part of the segment to widen and upgrade I-95 from mile markers 13 to 22, could be delayed, he said. The contract is scheduled to be awarded in 2021, but will likely be changed to a later date.

Before the virus, NCDOT also planned to begin construction of a roundabout at N.C. 710 and Deep Branch Road in the summer of 2021, Barksdale said. A delay in the project is anticipated, and the new contract date has not been set.

Because the Transportation Department revenue relies on the Motor Fuels Tax, Highway Use Tax and DMV fees, the significant budget impact has forced the department to notify local governments, stakeholders and the general public that all but about 50 major projects scheduled to start in the next 12 months are delayed, according to the NCDOT.

Projects moving forward are funded by Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles bonds, BUILD N.C. bonds and federal grants.

Projects scheduled to be awarded in the next year can be viewed on the NCDOT website.

Construction projects already awarded or underway will not be affected by changes.

The Transportation Department also is taking other steps to decrease expenditures, including:

– Allowing only mission critical purchases.

– Laying off temporary and embedded consultants.

– Suspending or decreasing many programs and services.

– A hiring freeze, except for positions that affect public safety.

The department also is in the process of developing plans for potential furloughs and a reduction in force, according to the Transportation Department. Plans are not yet complete and no decision has been made to enact them.
The southern segment of I-95 widening (Exit 22 to Exit 40) will only be delayed until June 2021, a 6 month delay. Hopefully this is the case with other projects "deleted" from the current 12 month list.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 22, 2020, 08:53:47 AM
Proposed new bridge to Outer Banks among projects delayed by NCDOT money crunch (https://www.obxtoday.com/top-stories/proposed-mid-currituck-bridge-among-projects-delayed-by-ncdot-money-crunch/)
Quote
The proposed toll bridge that would connect mainland Currituck County with Corolla is among a list of new projects that have been delayed by the N.C. Department of Transportation due to declining revenues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to a highway department news release on Tuesday, the NCDOT is now facing a $300 million budget shortfall due to decreases in travel in North Carolina that have cut the amount of motor fuel and highway use taxes collected, and fees brought in by the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles.

A 4.7-mile-long, two-lane toll bridge would run from the Narrow Shore neighborhood north of Aydlett on the Currituck mainland, to an area south of Whalehead Bay and Great Ocean Pond near the Corolla Bay neighborhood.

To connect the main span to U.S. 158 south of Coinjock, a smaller bridge would be built through Maple Swamp. The total price tag of the project has been estimated by NCDOT and N.C. Turnpike Authority at around $360 million.

A combination of local opponents and environmental organizations filed a federal lawsuit one year ago to block construction of the bridge, which was slated to begin by the fall of 2021.

Roughly 50 major projects statewide scheduled to start in the next 12 months are being delayed.

Those include repaving and widening of U.S. 17 in Camden County to bring it to interstate standards for the future I-87, and widening the last remaining two-lane stretch of U.S. 17 between Williamston and Washington.

Projects that will continue moving forward are funded by GARVEE bonds, BUILD NC bonds and federal grants. That includes a city-wide traffic signal control system for Elizabeth City.

NCDOT said the changes do not affect construction projects already underway or that have already been awarded.

The department also announced other steps to cut expenditures, including:

- Allowing only mission critical purchases
- Laying off temporary and embedded consultants
- Suspending or decreasing many programs and services
- Hiring freeze (except for positions that impact public safety)

Plans are also under development for potential furloughs and a reduction in workforce. Those plans are not yet complete and no decision has been made at this time to enact them, the highway department said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2020, 04:59:46 PM
Due to the COVID-19 impact on it's budget, NCDOT is delaying most of it's upcoming projects.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-21-covid-19-impact-ncdot-project-revenue.aspx)

The General Assembly will be voting on a COVID-19 omnibus bill next week, which would lower the cash floor from $300 million to $125 million for one year.

https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/ncdot-to-get-money-help-in-covid-19-relief-bill/19068887/ (https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/ncdot-to-get-money-help-in-covid-19-relief-bill/19068887/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 23, 2020, 06:15:54 PM
Good to see they're still spending $90 million to build half of the Rutherfordton Bypass.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2020, 06:23:03 PM
Good to see they're still spending $90 million to build half of the Rutherfordton Bypass.  :rolleyes:
Yet somehow I-95 got delayed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 24, 2020, 10:20:03 AM
As part of the I-440 widening project, more closures are planned next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-24-i-440-closures-melbourne-rd-girders.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-04-24-i-440-closures-melbourne-rd-girders.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 24, 2020, 07:28:11 PM
Good to see they're still spending $90 million to build half of the Rutherfordton Bypass.  :rolleyes:


Does Rutherfordton really need a bypass for US 221?  :-/ :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2020, 07:32:33 PM
Good to see they're still spending $90 million to build half of the Rutherfordton Bypass.  :rolleyes:


Does Rutherfordton really need a bypass for US 221?  :-/ :confused:
US-221 is a 4 lane divided highway south of US-74, and may well be widened to 4 lanes north of Rutherfordton up to Marion in the future. Having a continuous expressway design for a 4 lane arterial highway of that sort is probably desired, as opposed to having to slog through town. While it may seem unnecessary now, once a full SC -> Marion 4 lane divided highway is completed, it actually makes sense.

Are all of the town bypasses on arterial corridors across the state "really needed"?

Edit - It's an actual project, four laning between Marion and Rutherfordton. With this four lane project, the Rutherfordton Bypass, and the existing divided highway to the SC line, a 4 lane arterial highway with town bypasses will be in place from the SC line to Marion.
https://isothermalrpo.org/map-resources/r-2587-r-0204-us-221-in-rutherford-and-mcdowell-counties/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on April 29, 2020, 12:44:55 PM
News article regarding the delay in opening of the US 64 Asheboro Bypass to the fall:
https://www.courier-tribune.com/news/20200428/us-64-bypass-opening-moved-to-fall?fbclid=IwAR0DH5yWIWJxxr0ewaxqHaopbX1iusyMJAIp_jzHcPF93xmj_dhAYcRi66o (https://www.courier-tribune.com/news/20200428/us-64-bypass-opening-moved-to-fall?fbclid=IwAR0DH5yWIWJxxr0ewaxqHaopbX1iusyMJAIp_jzHcPF93xmj_dhAYcRi66o)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 29, 2020, 01:09:58 PM
Good to see they're still spending $90 million to build half of the Rutherfordton Bypass.  :rolleyes:
There is a nasty traffic choked crawl during both rush hours from the 64/221 diamond interchange to the end of the 4 lane Bus 74 highway.  My big issue with the design is with how close the 221 bypass will be to Bus 74 south of Charlotte Rd, there should have bee a direct south to south and north to north connecting ramps.


Does Rutherfordton really need a bypass for US 221?  :-/ :confused:
US-221 is a 4 lane divided highway south of US-74, and may well be widened to 4 lanes north of Rutherfordton up to Marion in the future. Having a continuous expressway design for a 4 lane arterial highway of that sort is probably desired, as opposed to having to slog through town. While it may seem unnecessary now, once a full SC -> Marion 4 lane divided highway is completed, it actually makes sense.

Are all of the town bypasses on arterial corridors across the state "really needed"?

Edit - It's an actual project, four laning between Marion and Rutherfordton. With this four lane project, the Rutherfordton Bypass, and the existing divided highway to the SC line, a 4 lane arterial highway with town bypasses will be in place from the SC line to Marion.
https://isothermalrpo.org/map-resources/r-2587-r-0204-us-221-in-rutherford-and-mcdowell-counties/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 29, 2020, 01:33:51 PM
Drove through  the 40/77 construction  site early this morning, focus seems to be on the new NB 77 bridge over 40 and a long elevated  flyover from 40 west to 77 south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 29, 2020, 02:49:49 PM
Completed or opened? It can open to traffic upon substantial completion and there still be punch list items remaining in the contract before it's considered 100% complete.

The Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx) shows 9/20/2020 for completion. Interesting that the completion date of 8/27/2019 in the Construction Progress Report differs from the 11/15/2019 completion in the contract (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/05-26-2015%20Special%20Central%20Letting/Randolph%20R-2536%20C203617.pdf).
Got a response from NCDOT.

The bypass will open to traffic in the fall, full completion will be months after that.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1250783587496050688
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 04, 2020, 04:00:05 PM
New press release regarding NCDOT's funding problem.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-revenue-decline-depletes-ncdot-cash.aspx  (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-revenue-decline-depletes-ncdot-cash.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 05, 2020, 05:07:13 PM
The new ramp from Brevard Road to I-26 East near Asheville has opened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx)

And closures are planned for I-40 West in SE Raleigh this weekend as part of the widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-05-i-40-west-closures-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-05-i-40-west-closures-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 06, 2020, 06:59:01 AM
The new ramp from Brevard Road to I-26 East near Asheville has opened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx)


I think this is more of a shifted-over-some ramp than a "new" ramp. Kind of surprising it warranted a press release. I don't think the new new ramp from I-26 west to Brevard Rd is open yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 11, 2020, 05:08:34 PM
The new ramp from Brevard Road to I-26 East near Asheville has opened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-04-i-26-brevard-onramp.aspx)


I don't think the new new ramp from I-26 west to Brevard Rd is open yet.

It opens this evening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-11-i-26-new-offramp-brevard.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-11-i-26-new-offramp-brevard.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 13, 2020, 08:29:14 AM
The US-301 project in Wilson just wrapped up.

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/east-wilson-is-open-for-business-construction-complete-on-us-301-corridor,207877 (http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/east-wilson-is-open-for-business-construction-complete-on-us-301-corridor,207877)

Quote
After two years of cones and detours, construction on a stretch of U.S. 301 has finished.

“Over the years, we have experienced difficulty in attracting business development in east Wilson,”  said U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield. “Businesses want safe surface and pedestrian routes. Citizens want 21st century infrastructure, which will allow them to walk in safety.

“East Wilson is open for business.”

Wilson was awarded $10 million in 2015 through a Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant. Officials leveraged the federal funds with $6 million from the N.C. Department of Transportation and nearly $2 million from the city. The project improved stormwater systems while adding raised medians, sidewalks and crosswalks from Black Creek Road to Lipscomb Road.

Construction began in April 2018 and was slated to finish in January, but inclement weather caused the N.C. Department of Transportation to grant a 180-day extension to projects all across the state.

State officials met with contractors on April 27 to perform a final inspection with plans to finish before May, but discovered a missing handicapped ramp that had been added after construction started. S.T. Wooten Corp. crews added the ramp and fixed other minor issues identified during the inspection.

“The city worked hard to secure funding through TIGER and NCDOT, and they have both been great partners in making this project a reality,”  said Bill Bass, Wilson public works director. “In some ways it doesn’t seem that long ago we were working on design, so it is great to see how this project has come together and how great it looks.”

Butterfield said he recalled when U.S. 301 routed through downtown and served as the main north-south route for decades. When Interstate 95 was built, traffic on U.S. 301 became more local than motorists driving through Wilson.

“Our goal from the beginning was to connect people and places through multiple modes of transportation,”  Bass said. “With the improvements, this section of 301 now fits the needs of the community and all users. We think this project will make a good first impression to people coming to Wilson.”

Years of construction led to frustration for residents and businesses throughout the project.

“My constituents understand the incredible importance of this project,”  Butterfield said. “The inconvenience has been tolerated by east Wilson residents. As one said to me, ”˜This is the cost of progress.’”

City officials have enlisted input from residents throughout the corridor about the types of businesses needed in east Wilson. The city is working on a plan to attract development to the area now that the construction has finished, as well as a beautification grant program.

“We are excited to have this project complete,”  Bass said. “Once our lives get back to normal, we anticipate all users will enjoy the new construction.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 13, 2020, 11:56:21 AM
Due to COVID-19's impact on their revenue (or what's left of it), NCDOT has suspended it's Piedmont passenger rail service until further notice. I know this ain't road-related, but I thought I'd give the NC posters a heads up.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 16, 2020, 09:51:00 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-15-i-40-sign-lane-closures-colfax.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-15-i-40-sign-lane-closures-colfax.aspx)

Quote
COLFAX — One lane of Interstate 40 west of Greensboro is set to reopen this weekend and another is set to close next week as part of sign work for the Business 40 Improvements Project.

The left lane of westbound I-40 has been closed between Sandy Ridge Road (Exit 208) and the I-40/U.S. 421 split (Exit 206) since April 17. It is set to reopen Saturday, when median-side preparation for new overhead signs for Salem Parkway and the I-40/U.S. 421 split is expected to be complete.

On Monday, crews are scheduled to begin drilling and pouring foundations on the outside shoulder for the same overhead sign structure. This will require closing the outside lane of I-40 West in the same location Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. each day.

The work is weather dependent and subject to change. The closure will be removed if crews finish prior to Friday.

Drivers should slow down and be mindful of crews working along this stretch of the interstate near the Guilford-Forsyth county line.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2020, 05:43:42 PM
https://twitter.com/NCDOT_Triad/status/1262836800155906050

The first segment (US-421 to US-158) of the I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway is expected to be open to traffic by August.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 22, 2020, 02:17:29 PM
NCDOT is holding a virtual informational meeting on June 4 to discuss the ongoing "jug handle" bridge project in Rodanthe.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-21-rodanthe-bridge-project-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-21-rodanthe-bridge-project-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadgeekteen on May 22, 2020, 05:53:40 PM
Due to COVID-19's impact on their revenue (or what's left of it), NCDOT has suspended it's Piedmont passenger rail service until further notice. I know this ain't road-related, but I thought I'd give the NC posters a heads up.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx)
Hope the train comes back once this is over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 22, 2020, 10:26:28 PM
Due to COVID-19's impact on their revenue (or what's left of it), NCDOT has suspended it's Piedmont passenger rail service until further notice. I know this ain't road-related, but I thought I'd give the NC posters a heads up.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-13-piedmont-service.aspx)
Hope the train comes back once this is over.

If the economics of the service were there before to render it viable, then it'll come back.  It's the "social distancing" thing that is disrupting rail of all types -- and even bus -- service currently.  It'll probably start out on a "skeleton" service -- possibly not every day or only once a day if multiple trains run the route, with half the seating blocked off (they're doing that out here with the San Jose-S.F. Caltrain service).  But a local service that was strictly commuter-oriented, the San Jose-Tracy-Stockton ACE train, is suspended until further notice; the sequestration order cut down its ridership by about 70%, so they just decided not to spend funds running the trains until it could be reasonably assured they'd get much of their customers back.   Unless permanent work-from-home situations majorly cut into that ridership, it'll be back -- those trains are usually packed daily.   But since the situation in NC is a train that serves not only commuters but interregional traffic other than simply work-and-back, there's no particular reason not for it to return once the worst is over.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 27, 2020, 08:51:33 PM
Some progress on the I-40 widening project southeast of Raleigh. The new East Garner Road bridge is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-27-east-garner-rd-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-27-east-garner-rd-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 29, 2020, 07:09:08 PM
Traffic shift on I-440 this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-29-i-440-east-shift-wade-lake-boone.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-05-29-i-440-east-shift-wade-lake-boone.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2020, 06:49:41 PM
NCDOT has selected the "improve existing" alternative for improvements to Corridor K in Graham County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-03-corridor-k-preferred-alternative.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-03-corridor-k-preferred-alternative.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 03, 2020, 07:04:51 PM
NCDOT has a brief press release on a decision concerning Corridor K in the Stecoah-Robbinsville-Andrews area. For those of us not following this long-running controversy closely, can someone provide a concise summary??
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 03, 2020, 07:05:42 PM
NCDOT has a brief press release on a decision concerning Corridor K in the Stecoah-Robbinsville-Andrews area. For those of us not following this long-running controversy closely, can someone provide a concise summary??
And here is the link: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-03-corridor-k-preferred-alternative.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 03, 2020, 08:17:47 PM
NCDOT has a brief press release on a decision concerning Corridor K in the Stecoah-Robbinsville-Andrews area. For those of us not following this long-running controversy closely, can someone provide a concise summary??

Corridor K has been proposed for 50+ years. There isn't a four-lane highway into the western-most corner of NC (on the NC side). A new route would have to be used since US 74 can't be widened through the Nantahala Gorge. To do so would cost a fortune, destroy a bunch of nature, and not serve that much traffic. I'm pretty sure the SELC has filed lawsuit(s) in the past, and will likely do so again. It is also argued that the area is disadvantaged due to the lack of safe and fast highway connections, so industry and others look elsewhere.

This is only for one section (C), using existing alignment and isn't a full four-laning and will cost in excess of $133 million. To finish the remainder of the project would be another half billion dollars.

Kind of amazed they're still talking about 2022 construction with everything else being delayed by falling revenue.

February 2019 Public Meeting Maps (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Pages/february-2019-meeting-maps.aspx)
(Preliminary?) Design Study Report - November 2018 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/corridor-k-design-study-report.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2020, 12:40:50 PM
The new US-421 bridges at the New Hanover/Pender county line are complete and open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-new-hanover-county-bridges-open-florence.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-new-hanover-county-bridges-open-florence.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 04, 2020, 05:04:41 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-i-440-west-shift-lake-boone-wade.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-04-i-440-west-shift-lake-boone-wade.aspx)

Quote
N.C. Department of Transportation contractors have scheduled a series of closures tonight on Interstate 440 at Lake Boone Trail as part of the I-440 Improvements project. These closures are similar to the closures that took place Monday night on the eastbound side from Wade Avenue to Lake Boone Trail.

At 9 p.m., I-440 West will close at Lake Boone Trail so crews can place a barrier wall and pavement markings to allow traffic to shift towards the median between Lake Boone Trail (Exit 5) and Wade Avenue (Exit 4). This pattern is scheduled to be in place for approximately two years.

A detour will direct drivers to take Exit 5 and follow Lake Boone Trail to Blue Ridge Road to Wade Avenue to access I-440 West.

The ramp from Lake Boone Trail to I-440 West will also be closed at the same time.

Work is scheduled to be completed by 5 a.m. tomorrow, weather permitting. A rain date is planned for the following night.

​Drivers should pay attention and allow for extra time to navigate through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 05, 2020, 01:23:27 PM
Several ramps on I-440 West will close tonight.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-05-i-440-west-ramps-closed-overnight.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-05-i-440-west-ramps-closed-overnight.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 05, 2020, 06:36:31 PM
NCDOT has a brief press release on a decision concerning Corridor K in the Stecoah-Robbinsville-Andrews area. For those of us not following this long-running controversy closely, can someone provide a concise summary??

Corridor K has been proposed for 50+ years. There isn't a four-lane highway into the western-most corner of NC (on the NC side). A new route would have to be used since US 74 can't be widened through the Nantahala Gorge. To do so would cost a fortune, destroy a bunch of nature, and not serve that much traffic. I'm pretty sure the SELC has filed lawsuit(s) in the past, and will likely do so again. It is also argued that the area is disadvantaged due to the lack of safe and fast highway connections, so industry and others look elsewhere.

This is only for one section (C), using existing alignment and isn't a full four-laning and will cost in excess of $133 million. To finish the remainder of the project would be another half billion dollars.

Kind of amazed they're still talking about 2022 construction with everything else being delayed by falling revenue.

February 2019 Public Meeting Maps (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Pages/february-2019-meeting-maps.aspx)
(Preliminary?) Design Study Report - November 2018 (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Documents/corridor-k-design-study-report.pdf)
I'm not sure what Section C is, so correct me if this is wrong: the plan is to 3-lane NC 143 between Stecoah and Robbinsville, on its present alignment with whatever curves and grades it has. This sounds like a final decision that there is not going to be a 4-lane Corridor K (still less an interstate, which they keep proposing over in Fictional).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on June 06, 2020, 06:50:12 AM
NCDOT has a brief press release on a decision concerning Corridor K in the Stecoah-Robbinsville-Andrews area. For those of us not following this long-running controversy closely, can someone provide a concise summary??

Corridor K has been proposed for 50+ years. There isn't a four-lane highway into the western-most corner of NC (on the NC side). A new route would have to be used since US 74 can't be widened through the Nantahala Gorge. To do so would cost a fortune, destroy a bunch of nature, and not serve that much traffic. I'm pretty sure the SELC has filed lawsuit(s) in the past, and will likely do so again. It is also argued that the area is disadvantaged due to the lack of safe and fast highway connections, so industry and others look elsewhere.

This is only for one section (C), using existing alignment and isn't a full four-laning and will cost in excess of $133 million. To finish the remainder of the project would be another half billion dollars.

Kind of amazed they're still talking about 2022 construction with everything else being delayed by falling revenue.

I'm not sure what Section C is, so correct me if this is wrong: the plan is to 3-lane NC 143 between Stecoah and Robbinsville, on its present alignment with whatever curves and grades it has. This sounds like a final decision that there is not going to be a 4-lane Corridor K (still less an interstate, which they keep proposing over in Fictional).
I am very familiar with the area in question. there is no way an interstate facility could be built out there. the mountains are too gnarly, and the actual construction would take at least 15 years, based on past NCDOT projects. just look at the 4-laning of US 321 between Lenoir and Blowing Rock. that took over 10 years to complete. I cant imagine trying to build an interstate-grade road through such terrain, and have it be worth the insane costs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 08, 2020, 10:23:49 AM
Upcoming overnight closures near SE I-40/I-440 interchange this week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-40-closures-rock-quarry-rd-bridge-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-40-closures-rock-quarry-rd-bridge-demo.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 08, 2020, 02:51:49 PM
Upcoming overnight closures near SE I-40/I-440 interchange this week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-40-closures-rock-quarry-rd-bridge-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-40-closures-rock-quarry-rd-bridge-demo.aspx)

There will also be overnight closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-440-western-blvd.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-08-i-440-western-blvd.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadgeekteen on June 09, 2020, 09:19:52 AM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 09, 2020, 01:14:19 PM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.
That’s North Carolina for you.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 09, 2020, 01:34:24 PM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.
That’s North Carolina for you.

At least we're not Pennsylvania  :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 09, 2020, 02:25:02 PM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.

Same reason they don't use Wilmington as a control city at the I-795/US-264 split in Wilson. It makes too much sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 09, 2020, 05:57:57 PM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.

I believe the towns (Forest City and Rutherfordton) referenced on the sign pre-date US 74 being re-routed and completed in Polk and Rutherford counties in '94 and NCDOT hasn't bothered updating it, even though the overhead signs were replaced roughly a decade ago from lighted to reflective (likely a copy and paste). From '76 to '94 you had to exit at NC 108 or NC 9. The new westbound Exit 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/vZGkVytPo4aTQC9D9) to US 74 uses Forest City and Shelby. One could also argue that the eastbound exit should now be updated to Exit 66 and not Exit 67. They could have updated the eastbound exit during the recent interchange project to match the westbound exit, but that would have required too much thought.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: adwerkema on June 10, 2020, 12:00:07 AM
On Youtube today, I came across an ad by the Army National Guard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvZCA2chtic). In the ad, members of the National Guard are shown helping rescue people from flooding (presumably from Hurricane Florence). The ad mislabels the area as Houston, TX.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49989796948_61596ed140_o.png])

I was trying to figure out exactly where this video was taken. Can anyone find this intersection on Google Maps street view?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on June 10, 2020, 12:57:46 AM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.

I believe the towns (Forest City and Rutherfordton) referenced on the sign pre-date US 74 being re-routed and completed in Polk and Rutherford counties in '94 and NCDOT hasn't bothered updating it, even though the overhead signs were replaced roughly a decade ago from lighted to reflective (likely a copy and paste). From '76 to '94 you had to exit at NC 108 or NC 9. The new westbound Exit 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/vZGkVytPo4aTQC9D9) to US 74 uses Forest City and Shelby. One could also argue that the eastbound exit should now be updated to Exit 66 and not Exit 67. They could have updated the eastbound exit during the recent interchange project to match the westbound exit, but that would have required too much thought.
I-26 EB does have two separate auxiliary signs--one for Gardner-Webb University and Charlotte, the other for Tryon and Shelby--before reaching Exit 67.  However, the control cities should be updated to Forest City and Shelby instead of Columbus and Rutherfordton.  Charlotte can still be on an auxiliary sign for that interchange.

This is one of the "negatives" with DOTs.  Too much carbon copying and not enough updating.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 10, 2020, 02:54:10 AM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.

I believe the towns (Forest City and Rutherfordton) referenced on the sign pre-date US 74 being re-routed and completed in Polk and Rutherford counties in '94 and NCDOT hasn't bothered updating it, even though the overhead signs were replaced roughly a decade ago from lighted to reflective (likely a copy and paste). From '76 to '94 you had to exit at NC 108 or NC 9. The new westbound Exit 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/vZGkVytPo4aTQC9D9) to US 74 uses Forest City and Shelby. One could also argue that the eastbound exit should now be updated to Exit 66 and not Exit 67. They could have updated the eastbound exit during the recent interchange project to match the westbound exit, but that would have required too much thought.
I-26 EB does have two separate auxiliary signs--one for Gardner-Webb University and Charlotte, the other for Tryon and Shelby--before reaching Exit 67.  However, the control cities should be updated to Forest City and Shelby instead of Columbus and Rutherfordton.  Charlotte can still be on an auxiliary sign for that interchange.

This is one of the "negatives" with DOTs.  Too much carbon copying and not enough updating.
Charlotte should definitely be a main control city, not just an auxiliary sign.

Shelby or Gastonia / Charlotte - control cities

Rutherfordton / Forest City - auxiliary signage

Columbus isn't even needed for the freeway mainline. Exit 67 on I-26 and Exit 163 on US-74.

Likewise, going westbound, the exit off I-85 should list Shelby / Asheville instead of Kings Mountain / Shelby.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 10, 2020, 08:10:40 AM
Why does NCDOT not use Charlotte as the control city at the I-26 US 74 junction? It instead uses two tiny towns, one not even on US 74.

I believe the towns (Forest City and Rutherfordton) referenced on the sign pre-date US 74 being re-routed and completed in Polk and Rutherford counties in '94 and NCDOT hasn't bothered updating it, even though the overhead signs were replaced roughly a decade ago from lighted to reflective (likely a copy and paste). From '76 to '94 you had to exit at NC 108 or NC 9. The new westbound Exit 66 (https://goo.gl/maps/vZGkVytPo4aTQC9D9) to US 74 uses Forest City and Shelby. One could also argue that the eastbound exit should now be updated to Exit 66 and not Exit 67. They could have updated the eastbound exit during the recent interchange project to match the westbound exit, but that would have required too much thought.
I-26 EB does have two separate auxiliary signs--one for Gardner-Webb University and Charlotte, the other for Tryon and Shelby--before reaching Exit 67.  However, the control cities should be updated to Forest City and Shelby instead of Columbus and Rutherfordton.  Charlotte can still be on an auxiliary sign for that interchange.

This is one of the "negatives" with DOTs.  Too much carbon copying and not enough updating.
Charlotte should definitely be a main control city, not just an auxiliary sign.

Shelby or Gastonia / Charlotte - control cities

Rutherfordton / Forest City - auxiliary signage

Columbus isn't even needed for the freeway mainline. Exit 67 on I-26 and Exit 163 on US-74.

Likewise, going westbound, the exit off I-85 should list Shelby / Asheville instead of Kings Mountain / Shelby.

The problem is that until late 2018 you had two interchanges in one. Westbound I-26 now has two separate interchanges for NC 108 and US 74. Westbound was previously signed as Exit 67 NC 108 Columbus/Tryon TO East US 74. Now there are two separate exits, 67 and 66. Eastbound is still one exit, Exit 67 East US 74 TO NC 108 Columbus/Rutherfordton. Eastbound Exit 67 is a continuation of US 74 and should be updated to Exit 66. Prior to the early 90's, this was not US 74 and only a short bypass of Columbus and was (and still) the eastbound exit from I-26 to NC 108/Columbus. Technically, the eastbound ramp to NC 108 should be an exit from US 74, but the westbound US 74 Exit 161 is I-26 East to NC 108 Tryon/Spartanburg. NCDOT also treats the eastbound exit to US 74 as a ramp ("Ramp A") and not a mainline freeway, which was compounded when they narrowed eastbound US 74 to a one lane ramp to make room for the new ramp from I-26 west.

They should update it to a two-lane exit at the same time, but not sure if that will happen now with the one-lane ramp beyond the exit.

You still need some sort of sign on I-26 east referencing Exit 67 and NC 108 Columbus/Tryon. Can you have two exit numbers at one interchange?

I suspect there will be updates if/when the Shelby Bypass is completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on June 10, 2020, 08:42:09 AM
On Youtube today, I came across an ad by the Army National Guard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvZCA2chtic). In the ad, members of the National Guard are shown helping rescue people from flooding (presumably from Hurricane Florence). The ad mislabels the area as Houston, TX.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49989796948_61596ed140_o.png])

I was trying to figure out exactly where this video was taken. Can anyone find this intersection on Google Maps street view?

I need some time to find it, but that is definitely in Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 10, 2020, 08:43:04 PM
On Youtube today, I came across an ad by the Army National Guard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvZCA2chtic). In the ad, members of the National Guard are shown helping rescue people from flooding (presumably from Hurricane Florence). The ad mislabels the area as Houston, TX.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49989796948_61596ed140_o.png])

I was trying to figure out exactly where this video was taken. Can anyone find this intersection on Google Maps street view?

I need some time to find it, but that is definitely in Wilmington.

Or it's a commercial. I don't think they film those during hurricanes. That low overhead assembly would put the 11'8" bridge to shame and is probably a prop. Could two cars even pass under it? Also, aren't signalized intersections supposed to have two signal heads?

It's likely an acknowledgment by the National Guard of two big storms (Harvey and Florence), or someone in production wanted to send a shout-out to Wilmington/Wrightsville Beach.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 10, 2020, 08:48:42 PM
That's almost certainly not an actual intersection, but it could be some kind of other control for a drawbridge or something. Even then, I agree that it's weird that there's only one signal for each direction.

It seems the only place that that sign could exist (with westbound US 76 signed primarily and US 17 and 74 signed indirectly) is the short solo section of US 76 after it and US 74 split near Wrightsville Beach. I couldn't find it with a quick check, though; there's nowhere that weird gantry could be.

It also seems weird that NCDOT would place the primarily signed route last after two other routes reached indirectly, but I don't know all the edge cases to NCDOT signage, so they may have done that a few times.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: adwerkema on June 10, 2020, 11:22:05 PM
Or it's a commercial. I don't think they film those during hurricanes. That low overhead assembly would put the 11'8" bridge to shame and is probably a prop. Could two cars even pass under it? Also, aren't signalized intersections supposed to have two signal heads?

It's likely an acknowledgment by the National Guard of two big storms (Harvey and Florence), or someone in production wanted to send a shout-out to Wilmington/Wrightsville Beach.

Agreed, this does appear to be a prop. Glad the National Guard actually spent time researching routes before making the prop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 11, 2020, 06:29:52 AM
Or it's a commercial. I don't think they film those during hurricanes. That low overhead assembly would put the 11'8" bridge to shame and is probably a prop. Could two cars even pass under it? Also, aren't signalized intersections supposed to have two signal heads?

It's likely an acknowledgment by the National Guard of two big storms (Harvey and Florence), or someone in production wanted to send a shout-out to Wilmington/Wrightsville Beach.

Agreed, this does appear to be a prop. Glad the National Guard actually spent time researching routes before making the prop.

Height isn't an issue - they are on a flooded street.  Width on the other hand...

Another potential location could've been downtown where until recently US 17 wasn't posted there and US 76 is on one-way splits (e.g. 5th NB or Front St SB at the ramp to the bridge).  But the dead giveaway after some searching is that Wilmington strings their stoplights (or has a handful of painted one-sided) masts so the only place a signal might be on a gantry like that would be a drawbridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 11, 2020, 07:23:07 AM
Or it's a commercial. I don't think they film those during hurricanes. That low overhead assembly would put the 11'8" bridge to shame and is probably a prop. Could two cars even pass under it? Also, aren't signalized intersections supposed to have two signal heads?

It's likely an acknowledgment by the National Guard of two big storms (Harvey and Florence), or someone in production wanted to send a shout-out to Wilmington/Wrightsville Beach.

Agreed, this does appear to be a prop. Glad the National Guard actually spent time researching routes before making the prop.

Height isn't an issue - they are on a flooded street.  Width on the other hand...

Another potential location could've been downtown where until recently US 17 wasn't posted there and US 76 is on one-way splits (e.g. 5th NB or Front St SB at the ramp to the bridge).  But the dead giveaway after some searching is that Wilmington strings their stoplights (or has a handful of painted one-sided) masts so the only place a signal might be on a gantry like that would be a drawbridge.

Sure, if it was 10 feet deep. There are low shrubs sticking out of the water behind the signs, and his helmet is barely going to clear the signal. How high are signals?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 12, 2020, 01:50:28 PM
Related to the I-440 improvements project, there will be a traffic shift on eastbound Wade Avenue this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-12-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-12-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 12, 2020, 04:14:16 PM
These would be my choices. I'm still not sure about the two exit numbers for one exit, and I don't expect the two-lane exit will ever happen. That would make too much sense and be too convenient.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49999249316_e2a23fee0d_c.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49998729248_30d6512ab0_c.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadgeekteen on June 12, 2020, 06:53:21 PM
These would be my choices. I'm still not sure about the two exit numbers for one exit, and I don't expect the two-lane exit will ever happen. That would make too much sense and be too convenient.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49999249316_e2a23fee0d_c.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49998729248_30d6512ab0_c.jpg)
No Charlotte on the signs?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 12, 2020, 07:03:17 PM
These would be my choices. I'm still not sure about the two exit numbers for one exit, and I don't expect the two-lane exit will ever happen. That would make too much sense and be too convenient.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49999249316_e2a23fee0d_c.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49998729248_30d6512ab0_c.jpg)
No Charlotte on the signs?

It's NCDOT. Putting Charlotte on the signs would make too much sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 13, 2020, 09:54:52 AM
Sadly, as a result of budget shortfalls NCDOT is halting operations on two of its three inland river ferries.  These small cable pulled ferries are relics to the past and crossings at some of these sites date to the 1800s.  The two northeastern North Carolina ferries - Sans Souci and Parkers - will shut down.  The Elwell Ferry over the Cape Fear River in Bladen County will remain in operation.


https://www.wral.com/the-very-last-ride-dot-cuts-mean-end-to-two-cable-ferries-in-eastern-nc/19142481/?fbclid=IwAR0taDKs6o1lsdm2-ex1M1nrlxdWU6GesflftHxoRlPNjMA5y1quA77x6Gw

I have features on all three inland ferries:
Parkers: http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2017/01/parkers-ferry.html
Sans Souci: http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-second-cable-ferry-in-north.html
Elwell: http://carolinaxroads.blogspot.com/2016/07/elwell-ferry.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on June 14, 2020, 12:42:04 AM
These would be my choices. I'm still not sure about the two exit numbers for one exit, and I don't expect the two-lane exit will ever happen. That would make too much sense and be too convenient.
*snip*
No Charlotte on the signs?

It's NCDOT. Putting Charlotte on the signs would make too much sense.

The TO is not needed either since it's also a direct ramp for NC 108.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 14, 2020, 04:42:43 PM
These would be my choices. I'm still not sure about the two exit numbers for one exit, and I don't expect the two-lane exit will ever happen. That would make too much sense and be too convenient.
*snip*
No Charlotte on the signs?

It's NCDOT. Putting Charlotte on the signs would make too much sense.

The TO is not needed either since it's also a direct ramp for NC 108.

That interchange is/was a mess. I-26 westbound used to not even list any towns on US 74, you just had to know to take the exit, go through the roundabout and cross NC 108. Exit 161 on US 74 westbound has always been signed as East I-26 TO NC 108, even though the ramp led directly to NC 108 before you could take the ramp from NC 108 to I-26 east. It works now that the interchange project has been completed. There used to be a LOT of confused drivers in those roundabouts.

Is it common to have signs that tell drivers to get in the left lane for no reason? It is applicable now that US 74 has been narrowed to a one-lane ramp, but it didn't make sense before 2018 when it was still a two-lane freeway.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50006437371_52a4ee22d8_c.jpg) (https://goo.gl/maps/HDmEjHgTDHksRX4p7)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 14, 2020, 08:48:31 PM
Progress on the westbound/outbound Wade Avenue bridge over I-440.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50005984168_b339a0bf70_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50005984168_1dbbad1b9c_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50006768527_0bceb05072_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50006768527_d68d5ad1e0_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50006769837_35ac7d1eb0_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50006769837_601210cfd0_k.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50005987418_677b0f0ef8_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50005987418_32b83cd188_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 15, 2020, 12:52:29 PM
^ Isn't the trail bridge you took those photos from due to be replaced as part of the interchange project?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 15, 2020, 04:37:27 PM
^ Isn't the trail bridge you took those photos from due to be replaced as part of the interchange project?

I don't think so. It's not shown as being replaced on the public meeting map (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-improvements/Documents/pre-construction-map-4-hillsborough-wade.pdf) from last year, and all new lanes should fit under the existing structure (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcLWBQrACYiUpaQ7).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 15, 2020, 11:17:14 PM
Drove through the interchange of US 321 and Interstate 85 today.  Lots of recent work installing new BGS' , lighting and signals for the upgraded connection.  One big disappointment  was that all the signage on 321 for 85 South has Kings Mountain  as the control city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2020, 04:29:01 PM
Shelby bypass project receives $25M in federal funds (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/06/16/shelby-bypass-highway74-usdot-infra-grant.html)
Quote
Another transportation project in the Charlotte region will receive significant federal funding.

On Monday evening, U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced the United States Department of Transportation had awarded a $25 million Infrastructure For Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant to the N.C. Department of Transportation to help fund improvements to the U.S. Highway 74 corridor.

The S.C. Department of Transportation also received a $34.6 million INFRA grant to fund the new I-77 interchange near the Carolina Panthers headquarters development in Rock Hill, state leaders announced Monday.

Among the improvements along Highway 74 that will receive the funding is the Shelby bypass project, which has been under construction since 2013. It is unclear how much of the $25 million will go toward the Shelby bypass specifically.

The nearly $300 million bypass project is scheduled to be completed in six sections. The "C" section of the bypass, the fourth of the six, has been under construction since 2017 and is pegged for completion in 2022. The final two sections, which have a total cost of around $110 million, are not scheduled to begin construction until 2024, according to the NCDOT website.

N.C. House Speaker Tim Moore, who represents Cleveland County, told the Charlotte Business Journal in February he was working to expedite the timeline for the project because its funding was already secured. It is unclear if those efforts or the completion schedule for the bypass has been affected by the Covid-19 outbreak.

Attempts to reach a spokesperson for Moore for comment on the grant award and more information on the Shelby bypass project were unsuccessful before deadline.

Moore and other local leaders are hopeful the completion of the bypass would lead to more development in the surrounding area.

Cleveland County created Washburn Switch Business Park near the new bypass to house the $280 million Clearwater Paper plant, which opened in 2012. Clearwater Paper announced the addition of $330 million in investment in 2017, creating 180 more jobs to add to the 250-plus employees that were already there.

In May 2019, the state announced ventilation equipment manufacturer Greenheck Group would invest $58.8 million to bring a 400-job expansion to Shelby's Foothills Commerce Center near the bypass.[color]
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 16, 2020, 05:21:29 PM
Shelby bypass project receives $25M in federal funds (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/06/16/shelby-bypass-highway74-usdot-infra-grant.html)

Based on the INFRA grant application narrative (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/Narrative%20US%2074%20NCDOT.pdf), less than half is going towards the bypass itself, which is a small fraction of the total cost. It does look like the final grade separation project (R-4045) is funded. Based on my math, broadband and ITS did not receive funding. "Resiliency" includes some FIMAN  (https://fiman.nc.gov/)flood gages and other stuff.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50013977076_72bb3f6cb8_o.png)

The two remaining sections of the bypass (D and E) were recently added back to the three-year let list (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36%20MONTH%20CENTRAL%20LET%20LIST%20(JUNE%202020%20-%20MAY%202023).pdf) with a June 2022 contract letting after construction had been delayed from 2021 to 2024. I don't know if the grant funding will speed that up or not, but I doubt it. At least accepting the federal funding should lock them into that commitment and schedule. But who knows with the decline in revenues.

Per the NCDOT Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx), section C will not be finished until 2024. My guess is the construction contractor has received a supplemental agreement for what was previously a separate project (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2019%20January%20Board%20of%20Trans%20Handout%20Item%20N.pdf) (R-2707G) for paving section C, extending the project's overall schedule. That will also maintain the less than one mile per year status quo for this project (seven years of construction for less than five miles of new alignment).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 16, 2020, 06:22:49 PM
It does seem that public pressure is building to get this project moving at last.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 17, 2020, 10:30:28 AM
Per the NCDOT Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx), section C will not be finished until 2024. My guess is the construction contractor has received a supplemental agreement for what was previously a separate project (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2019%20January%20Board%20of%20Trans%20Handout%20Item%20N.pdf) (R-2707G) for paving section C, extending the project's overall schedule. That will also maintain the less than one mile per year status quo for this project (seven years of construction for less than five miles of new alignment).

The extended schedule could also be related to building a bridge for Airport Road over the new bypass. A 300-foot stretch of Airport Road was shut down last year when construction of the bypass severed the road and traffic was diverted to NC 180.

Fixing Airport Road (https://www.shelbystar.com/news/20200219/fixing-airport-road)
Funding will reconnect Airport Road in Cleveland County (https://www.shelbystar.com/news/20200608/funding-will-reconnect-airport-road-in-cleveland-county)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 17, 2020, 10:32:00 AM
Drove through the interchange of US 321 and Interstate 85 today.  Lots of recent work installing new BGS' , lighting and signals for the upgraded connection.  One big disappointment  was that all the signage on 321 for 85 South has Kings Mountain  as the control city.

How close is the interchange to being ready? I think it was supposed to open this spring, but has been delayed like everything else due to the weather.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 17, 2020, 07:06:49 PM
Per the NCDOT Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx), section C will not be finished until 2024. My guess is the construction contractor has received a supplemental agreement for what was previously a separate project (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2019%20January%20Board%20of%20Trans%20Handout%20Item%20N.pdf) (R-2707G) for paving section C, extending the project's overall schedule. That will also maintain the less than one mile per year status quo for this project (seven years of construction for less than five miles of new alignment).

The extended schedule could also be related to building a bridge for Airport Road over the new bypass. A 300-foot stretch of Airport Road was shut down last year when construction of the bypass severed the road and traffic was diverted to NC 180.

Fixing Airport Road (https://www.shelbystar.com/news/20200219/fixing-airport-road)
Funding will reconnect Airport Road in Cleveland County (https://www.shelbystar.com/news/20200608/funding-will-reconnect-airport-road-in-cleveland-county)

With the terrain there, it would be better for Airport road to go under 74, but would cost significantly more.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 17, 2020, 07:08:04 PM
Drove through the interchange of US 321 and Interstate 85 today.  Lots of recent work installing new BGS' , lighting and signals for the upgraded connection.  One big disappointment  was that all the signage on 321 for 85 South has Kings Mountain  as the control city.

The current Google map satellite image is not too far behind.

How close is the interchange to being ready? I think it was supposed to open this spring, but has been delayed like everything else due to the weather.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 17, 2020, 08:05:57 PM
Drove through the interchange of US 321 and Interstate 85 today.  Lots of recent work installing new BGS' , lighting and signals for the upgraded connection.  One big disappointment  was that all the signage on 321 for 85 South has Kings Mountain  as the control city.

The current Google map satellite image is not too far behind.

How close is the interchange to being ready? I think it was supposed to open this spring, but has been delayed like everything else due to the weather.
?? Is the previous post that you were replying to him about?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 17, 2020, 09:04:06 PM
Upcoming rolling roadblocks on I-40 between Durham and Cary due to the Airport Blvd interchange improvement project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-airport-blvd-slow-rolls.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-airport-blvd-slow-rolls.aspx)

And regarding the Business 40 project in Winston-Salem, there will be lane & exit closures on I-40 near Kernersville due to sign work...

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-lanes-exit-closure-kernersville.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-lanes-exit-closure-kernersville.aspx)

...and closures on the newly christened Salem Parkway due to ongoing construction of sound walls.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-salem-parkway-business-40-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-salem-parkway-business-40-overnight-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 18, 2020, 04:14:38 PM
Shelby bypass project receives $25M in federal funds (https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2020/06/16/shelby-bypass-highway74-usdot-infra-grant.html)

Based on the INFRA grant application narrative (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-US74/Documents/Narrative%20US%2074%20NCDOT.pdf), less than half is going towards the bypass itself, which is a small fraction of the total cost. It does look like the final grade separation project (R-4045) is funded. Based on my math, broadband and ITS did not receive funding. "Resiliency" includes some FIMAN  (https://fiman.nc.gov/)flood gages and other stuff.

The two remaining sections of the bypass (D and E) were recently added back to the three-year let list (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36%20MONTH%20CENTRAL%20LET%20LIST%20(JUNE%202020%20-%20MAY%202023).pdf) with a June 2022 contract letting after construction had been delayed from 2021 to 2024. I don't know if the grant funding will speed that up or not, but I doubt it. At least accepting the federal funding should lock them into that commitment and schedule. But who knows with the decline in revenues.

Per the NCDOT Construction Progress Report (https://apps.ncdot.gov/traffictravel/progloc/ProgLocSearch.aspx), section C will not be finished until 2024. My guess is the construction contractor has received a supplemental agreement for what was previously a separate project (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/2019%20January%20Board%20of%20Trans%20Handout%20Item%20N.pdf) (R-2707G) for paving section C, extending the project's overall schedule. That will also maintain the less than one mile per year status quo for this project (seven years of construction for less than five miles of new alignment).
From the INFRA 2020 Fact Sheet (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf) (page 12) -

Quote
US 74 Corridor Opportunities for Rural Efficiency and Safety Improvement Project

North Carolina Department of Transportation
Cleveland, Columbus, and Robeson Counties, North Carolina

Proposed Award: $25,000,000
Estimated Future Eligible Project Costs: $237,381,000
Estimated Minimum Non-Federal Funding: $212,381,000
Urban-Rural Designation: Rural

Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will be awarded $25 million to complete a series of highway improvements on the US 74 corridor in southern North Carolina between Asheville and I-40 near Wilmington. The project includes a series of intersection-to-interchange upgrades, and the completion of a major bypass around Shelby. The project will complete the conversion of the Lattimore intersection to a grade-separated interchange in Mooresboro, creating a freeway facility between Asheville and Charlotte. The project also includes the conversion of four signalized intersections on US 74 (at NC 72/NC 130, Boardman Road, Chauncey Town Road, and Old Lake Road), between I-95 and I-140 in Robeson and Columbus counties.

Project Benefits
The project supports economic vitality by providing a faster, more efficient route for the freight and automobile traffic traveling the US 74 corridor. The project is also expected to generate safety benefits by reducing the likelihood of crashes by converting at-grade signalized intersections to grade separated interchanges and removing conflicts between intercity and local traffic. The project serves a broad geographic area, contributing to regional mobility benefits.

The State agreed to an accountability measure: for each project component, if the State does not complete and open that component to traffic by a specific date, the State will forfeit or return the lesser of $10 million or 10 percent of that component’s costs.
The description mentions all of the proposed projects, but assuming the above sheet is accurate, money will only go two projects - the Lattimore interchange and the Shelby Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 22, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Upcoming rolling roadblocks on I-40 between Durham and Cary due to the Airport Blvd interchange improvement project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-airport-blvd-slow-rolls.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-17-i-40-airport-blvd-slow-rolls.aspx)

The exit loop from I-40 East to eastbound Airport Blvd will be closed permanently tonight.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-22-airport-boulevard-changes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-22-airport-boulevard-changes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 22, 2020, 08:01:06 PM

From the INFRA 2020 Fact Sheet (https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2020-06/INFRA%202020%20Fact%20Sheet_0.pdf) (page 12) -

Quote
US 74 Corridor Opportunities for Rural Efficiency and Safety Improvement Project

[...]
The State agreed to an accountability measure: for each project component, if the State does not complete and open that component to traffic by a specific date, the State will forfeit or return the lesser of $10 million or 10 percent of that component’s costs.

The USDOT has clearly dealt with the NCDOT before.

It's also worth noting that none of the projects in the I-87 grant application (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf) received any funding, if that hasn't been brought up in the other thread.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 22, 2020, 09:00:53 PM
It's also worth noting that none of the projects in the I-87 grant application (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/INFRA2020-I87/Documents/Narrative%20I-87%20NCDOT.pdf) received any funding, if that hasn't been brought up in the other thread.
Interesting, I did not realize there were any other grants applied for, let alone for I-87.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 23, 2020, 01:04:29 PM
Related to the I-440 improvements project, there will be a traffic shift on eastbound Wade Avenue this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-12-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-12-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx)

Same shift, different day.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-23-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-06-23-eastbound-wade-ave-traffic-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 06, 2020, 11:03:48 AM
More overnight closures on Business 40 Salem Parkway in Winston-Salem this week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-06-salem-pkwy-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-06-salem-pkwy-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 10, 2020, 07:26:05 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-09-salem-pkwy-weekend-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-09-salem-pkwy-weekend-closure.aspx)

Quote
​WINSTON-SALEM — Work on the Salem Parkway project will require the highway to be closed in both directions between Cloverdale Avenue and Main Street this weekend.

The closure is needed so crews can do bridge painting and remove all the supports underneath the Green Street pedestrian bridge.

The highway closure will be in place starting at 8 p.m. on Friday with all lanes reopening when the work is completed, and no later than 6 a.m. on Monday.

Signed detours will be in place. Eastbound vehicles will exit at Cloverdale Avenue and use First Street, Peters Creek Parkway, Academy Street, Old Salem Road and Main Street to get back to Salem Parkway.

Westbound drivers will have to exit at Main Street and will use First Street to get to Cloverdale Avenue and return to the Parkway.

Motorists need to pay extra attention while in the work area and along the detour route. They should anticipate traveling through the area will take a little longer than normal because of the detour.

The work is dependent on weather conditions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 13, 2020, 08:11:56 PM
In a somewhat related search, I came across the 1973 Draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) for the Interstate 95 bypass of Fayetteville, NC.  Within the DEIS were details of the US 301 upgrade alternative.  Basically the alternatives called for upgrading US 301 to Interstate standards at either a 70 mph or 60 mph design.  The freeway would have been six lanes and include frontage roads.  The 70 mph design would have a 68 foot median northwards to Owen Drive/Gillepsie Street and then a 22 foot median with jersey barrier the rest of the way to approximately the current Middle Road Interchange on Business 95.  the 60 mph design would have a 22 foot bedian with barrier the entire length.  There would seven total interchanges (not counting the three in eastover already existing) and if the 70 mph design option was chosen a full sized interchange would be in place where Business I-95 current rejoins I-95 south of the city.

Within the design options were two smaller alternatives on how to build US 301 from McDuffie Street to Grove Street (NC 24).  One option was called the fill option that would build I-95 to the immediate west of the current US 301 with fill at about 20 - 25 feet above the current US 301 grade.  The second option would be to elevate I-95 over the existing US 301 over that same section and have Eastern Blvd. serve as frontage roads below the highway.

Also, there is mention of an Owen Drive Freeway interchange at Airport Road.  This most likely is an extension of the All-American Freeway to Eastern Blvd.  Also, the Cape Fear Expressway (did not know of it until this document) is mentioned.  This was to be a replacement of NC 24 that would have ran on the west side of the Cape Fear with an interchange near what is now the Middle Road Interchange.

The scanned document unfortunately did not fully scan the layout of the alternatives - as they would pull out from the document.  So, I have converted the information onto a google map (Creating my own map is not a strong suit of mine) that gives a general idea of where/what the interchanges would be, the general alignment of the "fill" alternative and where bridges would be built on the fill alternative to cross over various railroads (at-grade today on Business 95) and cross-streets.

I will be working this in to my feature on the battle to route I-95 in Fayetteville this week but wanted to share the map in case there was any additional input from you all.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1cN_LzpfMTPCHJ0pctfRSRbPx9ZkENJTx&usp=sharing


I've had this on my to do list for a long time but I finally have finished a feature on the decade long battle to complete Interstate 95 in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

A few things of note:
- The appeals came from local businesses along US 301 hoping to route I-95 on what is now Business 95/US 301 in Fayetteville
- The case went all the way to the Supreme Court but was not taken.
- The I-95 Committee's attempt to find  any way (often at the last possible minute) to change the routing.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 17, 2020, 04:23:37 PM
The Capital Boulevard rehab and bridge replacement project in Raleigh is now complete.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-17-capital-blvd-completion.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-17-capital-blvd-completion.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on July 17, 2020, 10:31:12 PM
So where was the Martin Luther King Jr Freeway in Fayetteville intended to go after its current northern terminus?  Over to I-95, north along US 401, or somewhere else?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 18, 2020, 09:22:09 AM
So where was the Martin Luther King Jr Freeway in Fayetteville intended to go after its current northern terminus?  Over to I-95, north along US 401, or somewhere else?

Not sure - still researching.  I've heard (but never seen anything official) Business 95 and also NC 24. The Cape Fear Expressway may provide clues but I haven't solved that mystery yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 18, 2020, 11:17:23 AM
So where was the Martin Luther King Jr Freeway in Fayetteville intended to go after its current northern terminus?  Over to I-95, north along US 401, or somewhere else?

Not sure - still researching.  I've heard (but never seen anything official) Business 95 and also NC 24. The Cape Fear Expressway may provide clues but I haven't solved that mystery yet.

1968 Cumberland County map shows the north extension to take a sharp dive southeast back to US 301.  The south end was initially planned to be further north along US 301 than the NC 87 interchange area:

(http://www.vahighways.com/MLKfwy_1968.jpg)

The 1972 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8231/rec/32 - shows the southern end synching up with NC 87 and no change to northern end.

The 1980 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8681/rec/35 -  no longer shows a proposed extension northward.

To see a bigger context of what Fayetteville envisioned, see page 55 of the Owen Dr Freeway EIS - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556030147805&view=1up&seq=55  - the sharp turn at the Cape Fear River on the northern extensin is really a new route for US 401

The history of the CBD Loop does not mention what happened to the northern extension in the EIS for the southern extensin - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556031254923&view=1up&seq=20
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 29, 2020, 05:25:19 PM
Beginning tomorrow morning, traffic on I-26 West will be shifted to the new outside lanes near the Brevard Road interchange in Asheville.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-29-i-26-westbound-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-29-i-26-westbound-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 30, 2020, 06:49:05 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-30-us-70-eno-river-bridge-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-30-us-70-eno-river-bridge-shift.aspx)

Quote
HILLSBOROUGH — State tran​sportation contractors plan to shift U.S. 70 traffic to a temporary bridge over the Eno River on the east side of Hillsborough this weekend.

The shift will take place under lane closures beginning at 7 a.m. Saturday and is expected to be complete by the end of the day. It will be postponed to another weekend if weather interferes.

With traffic moved onto the temporary bridge, crews can demolish and replace the existing bridge, which is 79 years old and has reached the end of its useful life.

Also starting Saturday morning and lasting throughout the project, the U.S. 70 entrance to Riverside Drive closest to the river will be closed. Drivers will be directed to use the second entrance to Riverside Drive and Mountain View Court to access points on Riverside Drive closest to the river.

Drivers should slow down when approaching the work zone and be mindful of the crews at working close to the travel lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 31, 2020, 06:19:58 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-30-us-70-eno-river-bridge-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-30-us-70-eno-river-bridge-shift.aspx)

Quote
HILLSBOROUGH — State tran​sportation contractors plan to shift U.S. 70 traffic to a temporary bridge over the Eno River on the east side of Hillsborough this weekend.

The shift will take place under lane closures beginning at 7 a.m. Saturday and is expected to be complete by the end of the day. It will be postponed to another weekend if weather interferes.

With traffic moved onto the temporary bridge, crews can demolish and replace the existing bridge, which is 79 years old and has reached the end of its useful life.

Also starting Saturday morning and lasting throughout the project, the U.S. 70 entrance to Riverside Drive closest to the river will be closed. Drivers will be directed to use the second entrance to Riverside Drive and Mountain View Court to access points on Riverside Drive closest to the river.

Drivers should slow down when approaching the work zone and be mindful of the crews at working close to the travel lanes.
Here's the old bridge and the beginning of work a year ago. A slow-moving project.
https://goo.gl/maps/whxuRccai1dJX9Rz7
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 01, 2020, 11:57:18 AM
Another mudslide related road closing in the NC mountains:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-31-slide-closed-nantahala-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-07-31-slide-closed-nantahala-gorge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 02, 2020, 08:34:15 PM
Thanks, Mike.  I'll have to take a look into it.  I did see in searches that Methodist College (now University) preferred a west shore of the Cape Fear River of the Cape Fear Expressway I'll have to piece it all together.

Not sure - still researching.  I've heard (but never seen anything official) Business 95 and also NC 24. The Cape Fear Expressway may provide clues but I haven't solved that mystery yet.

So where was the Martin Luther King Jr Freeway in Fayetteville intended to go after its current northern terminus?  Over to I-95, north along US 401, or somewhere else?



1968 Cumberland County map shows the north extension to take a sharp dive southeast back to US 301.  The south end was initially planned to be further north along US 301 than the NC 87 interchange area:

(http://www.vahighways.com/MLKfwy_1968.jpg)

The 1972 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8231/rec/32 - shows the southern end synching up with NC 87 and no change to northern end.

The 1980 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8681/rec/35 -  no longer shows a proposed extension northward.

To see a bigger context of what Fayetteville envisioned, see page 55 of the Owen Dr Freeway EIS - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556030147805&view=1up&seq=55  - the sharp turn at the Cape Fear River on the northern extensin is really a new route for US 401

The history of the CBD Loop does not mention what happened to the northern extension in the EIS for the southern extensin - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556031254923&view=1up&seq=20
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 03, 2020, 06:37:29 PM
I'll bet Lumberton is going to get clobbered by the most recent tropical storm again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 07, 2020, 03:38:16 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-07-i-440-east-traffic-shift-i-40-jones-franklin.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-07-i-440-east-traffic-shift-i-40-jones-franklin.aspx)

Quote
RALEIGH – N.C. Department of Transportation contractors are scheduled to shift traffic toward the median on Interstate 440 East from I-40 to Jones Franklin Road on Sunday night as part of the Interstate 440 Improvements project.

At 9:30 p.m., crews will isolate traffic to a single lane beginning with the outside and then alternating to the inside lane to allow crews to place barrier wall and pavement markings. The shift is scheduled to be completed by 6 a.m. Monday. Traffic will be in this pattern for about nine months.

The ramp from I-40 West to I-440 East will be closed during the shift. Drivers will follow a detour through the loops at the interchange to get on I-440 East.

At the same time, the ramp from I-440 East to Jones Franklin Road (Exit 1C) will close for nine months. A detour will direct drivers to take the Western Boulevard exit (Exit 2), turn right onto Western Boulevard, make a U-turn at Kent Road and take I-440 West back to Jones Franklin Road.

Beginning at 6 a.m. Monday, a new temporary exit loop will take motorists from I-440 East to Jones Franklin Road (Exit 1C). Drivers will pass under the Jones Franklin Road bridge and immediately exit to the right onto the new loop. There will be a signal at the top of the ramp and lanes to turn right and left. This pattern will be in place for nine months as the new bridge over the highway is constructed.

All work is weather conditional. A rain date is planned for Monday night.

​Drivers should pay attention and allow for extra time to navigate through the work zone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2020, 08:45:56 AM
Demolition work on the northbound US-701 bridge over the Cape Fear River in Elizabethtown has begun. A separate contract to replace both bridges with a single 4-lane bridge is planned to be awarded this fall.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-11-us-701-north-bridge-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-11-us-701-north-bridge-demo.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 12, 2020, 06:04:57 PM
The US 74/Lattimore Rd/Ellenboro Rd grade separation project (R-4045) west of Shelby has been added to the STIP thanks to the INFRA grant, with construction scheduled to start in 2022. If the remaining sections of the Shelby Bypass also start construction in 2022 as scheduled, there will finally be a completed freeway between I-26 and I-85 by the middle of the decade.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50219842841_e2e081eb09_z.jpg) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 14, 2020, 08:24:02 PM
Any plans for an Interstate designation on US 74 when the freeway is completed (as if North Carolina needed any additional Interstates running within its borders)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 15, 2020, 07:59:45 AM
Any plans for an Interstate designation on US 74 when the freeway is completed (as if North Carolina needed any additional Interstates running within its borders)?

Nothing official from NCDOT so far, but the local push for it has already begun. I'd say it's only a matter of time before the stretch between I-26 and I-85 becomes a 3di, likely an I-x26.

The Monroe Bypass is tolled, so that pretty much kills any chance of an interstate between I-74 in Rockingham and I-485.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 15, 2020, 06:32:46 PM
Any plans for an Interstate designation on US 74 when the freeway is completed (as if North Carolina needed any additional Interstates running within its borders)?

Nothing official from NCDOT so far, but the local push for it has already begun. I'd say it's only a matter of time before the stretch between I-26 and I-85 becomes a 3di, likely an I-x26.

The Monroe Bypass is tolled, so that pretty much kills any chance of an interstate between I-74 in Rockingham and I-485.
I-226 would not be a good choice because US 74 actually intersects NC 226 in Shelby. I-426 works; there is no NC 426.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 15, 2020, 06:47:46 PM
I-226 would not be a good choice because US 74 actually intersects NC 226 in Shelby.

Which is exactly why NCDOT will choose I-226. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 15, 2020, 07:39:47 PM
I-226 would not be a good choice because US 74 actually intersects NC 226 in Shelby.

Which is exactly why NCDOT will choose I-226. :spin:

Actually, the reason NCDOT originally rejected all the potential even designations for the now I-87 corridor was conflict with state highways 46, 54, and 56 (although the first didn't even come close to the nascent Interstate corridor).  AASHTO rejected the state-highway-primacy argument but somehow in a fit of idiocy accepted their alternate N-S designation but changed the number for equally spurious reasons.  So number conflict does figure into NCDOT choices.  But in the case of any new designation along US 74, IMO they'll opt for a combination designation for US 74 both west of I-85 and from Charlotte to Rockingham.  And since there's no state highway 36 presently -- and that's a choice AASHTO would readily accept -- I predict that if and when Interstate designation is sought for the US 74 corridor they'll submit I-36 as the number.   Remember NCDOT and the state legislators holding their purse strings seem to prefer 2di's (which is why I'm surprised future I-587 wasn't submitted as I-46 after the I-42 designation was finalized for US 70).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 15, 2020, 07:47:41 PM
Actually, 426 has been floated out there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 15, 2020, 07:48:18 PM
I-226 would not be a good choice because US 74 actually intersects NC 226 in Shelby.

Which is exactly why NCDOT will choose I-226. :spin:

Actually, the reason NCDOT originally rejected all the potential even designations for the now I-87 corridor was conflict with state highways 46, 54, and 56 (although the first didn't even come close to the nascent Interstate corridor).  AASHTO rejected the state-highway-primacy argument but somehow in a fit of idiocy accepted their alternate N-S designation but changed the number for equally spurious reasons.  So number conflict does figure into NCDOT choices.  But in the case of any new designation along US 74, IMO they'll opt for a combination designation for US 74 both west of I-85 and from Charlotte to Rockingham.  And since there's no state highway 36 presently -- and that's a choice AASHTO would readily accept -- I predict that if and when Interstate designation is sought for the US 74 corridor they'll submit I-36 as the number.   Remember NCDOT and the state legislators holding their purse strings seem to prefer 2di's (which is why I'm surprised future I-587 wasn't submitted as I-46 after the I-42 designation was finalized for US 70).

Correct -  NCDOT's full explanation on their original choices are documented here: https://www.gribblenation.org/2016/05/36-and-89-ncdot-submits-their.html

The state may no longer be as eager to change numbers (see NC 73 and as of now NC 42) though. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 19, 2020, 10:36:42 AM
There is updated Google imagry for the Shelby bypass and the NC16 dualization south of Conover.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 20, 2020, 01:23:42 PM
NC 16 widening is scheduled to be finished next summer, 2021.

This will create a great 4 lane alternate (and more direct route) over I-85 and US 321 for motorists traveling back and forth from Hickory to Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 20, 2020, 02:09:22 PM
NC 16 widening is scheduled to be finished next summer, 2021.

This will create a great 4 lane alternate (and more direct route) over I-85 and US 321 for motorists traveling back and forth from Hickory to Charlotte.
I see NC-16 as being just that - an alternate route.

The northern 15 miles from I-40 to Denver, including the under construction portion - is 4 lane divided - but is being built as a boulevard with curb and gutter and a 50 mph (perhaps 55 mph south of Newton) speed limit.

The southern 20 miles from Denver to I-485, on the other hand, was actually built IMO properly. A new alignment built mostly to freeway standards with a couple at-grade intersections. The speed limit is 65 mph in some areas, though drops to 60 mph due to some minor intersections towards the northern end.

I think it would be a more viable alternative had they built it to expressway standards with at least a 60 mph speed limit throughout, and even more so if 65 mph was permitted on divided highways - specifically in areas where it has to be 60 mph for miles on end just because there's a minor at-grade intersection mixed in with overpasses and interchanges.

I-85 to US-321 will likely continue to be the main route, built to full 65 mph freeway standards with the exception of the gap at the I-85 junction, and only a few miles longer. The NC-16 route will be a useful alternate route for those wishing to avoid the interstate and during congestion / incidents. Not against the NC-16 project, but I just feel like it could've been done better, particularly building on new alignment to avoid impacts and to allow a wider, expressway / freeway design. At least they got US-321 right when that project was built decades ago - full freeway design throughout with a 65 mph speed limit (that should be increased to 70 mph).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 20, 2020, 05:17:46 PM
Speaking of NC 16, has NCDOT ever indicated long-term plans to upgrade the road to a freeway closer to Charlotte, especially the section around the I-85 interchange? The freeway section extending from the end of I-277 stops just short of I-85, causing all the traffic from I-85 to the west heading to downtown to funnel through the SPUI.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 20, 2020, 06:21:39 PM
Speaking of NC 16, has NCDOT ever indicated long-term plans to upgrade the road to a freeway closer to Charlotte, especially the section around the I-85 interchange? The freeway section extending from the end of I-277 stops just short of I-85, causing all the traffic from I-85 to the west heading to downtown to funnel through the SPUI.
Not really answering your question, but supposedly an NC widening of 16 north of 40 is making it's was through the works.  IIRC for 8 miles toward Taylorsville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 21, 2020, 08:58:45 AM
"specifically in areas where it has to be 60 mph for miles on end just because there's a minor at-grade intersection mixed in with overpasses and interchanges."

Reminds me of US 421 from Sanford to Greensboro, except for the brief 65 MPH zone on the Siler City Bypass.

I think all rural 4 lane highways across the state should be at least 60, 65 is even better.  If most rural 2 lane roads are 55, what good is it to spend money on widening roads, if you can't go a little faster?

One obvious candidate for a bump up from 55 is NC 24 from Fayetteville to Jacksonville, most of this road is very rural (especially the newly widened part west of Clinton) and the Kenansville bypass.  This is a key economic and national defense corridor as it is the most direct link between Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg.  Also in the same area, NC 87 from Elizabethtown to Fayetteville, except for the towns of Tar Heel and Dublin.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 21, 2020, 03:34:46 PM
If most rural 2 lane roads are 55, what good is it to spend money on widening roads, if you can't go a little faster?
There's other obvious benefits, being able to safely pass slower vehicles, having a median between opposing traffic, more capacity, etc. but I do agree a four lane divided highway should easily be able to handle at least 60 mph, preferably 65 mph.

One obvious candidate for a bump up from 55 is NC 24 from Fayetteville to Jacksonville, most of this road is very rural (especially the newly widened part west of Clinton) and the Kenansville bypass.  This is a key economic and national defense corridor as it is the most direct link between Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg.  Also in the same area, NC 87 from Elizabethtown to Fayetteville, except for the towns of Tar Heel and Dublin.
Most of US-17 should be posted at 60 mph where it's currently 55 mph.

I contacted NCDOT a few months ago on Twitter regarding speed limits being increased from 55 mph to 60 mph, and noted specific examples including US-17, NC-24, NC-87, US-64, and US-117 and they said they would pass information along. I also mentioned freeway segments of US-117 and US-421 that could be increased from 60 mph to 65 or 70 mph.

(4 posts)
https://twitter.com/sprjus4/status/1252300894839943170

A couple weeks ago, I followed up and they DMed me an email response from the state traffic engineer essentially saying he largely agrees with my assessment having driven those roads himself, and that they plan to begin speed studies on several segments. He said their goal was to increase speed limits on divided highways around the state where safely possible, pointing to the recent increase to much of US-70 between Raleigh and New Bern from 55 mph to 60 mph.

The recently widened portions of US-13 and US-158 in the northeastern part of the state were also recently increased in the past couple of years from 55 mph to 60 mph, which I believe was requested by the county, NCDOT studied it, and ultimately increased it.

I'm hopeful that over the next couple of years, we'll be seeing more 60 mph signage along more and more divided highways, especially in the eastern part of the state. Ideally, many should actually be 65 mph, but I'll gladly take 60 mph over 55 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 25, 2020, 07:54:31 AM
Speaking of NC 16, has NCDOT ever indicated long-term plans to upgrade the road to a freeway closer to Charlotte, especially the section around the I-85 interchange? The freeway section extending from the end of I-277 stops just short of I-85, causing all the traffic from I-85 to the west heading to downtown to funnel through the SPUI.

A feasibility study (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/FS-1810A_Feasibility-Study_Report_2020.pdf) was released this year for "Improvements to NC 16 (Brookshire Boulevard) from Lucia Riverbend Highway to North Hoskins Road in Charlotte" with two alternatives studied: 1) freeway/expressway and 2) a reduced conflict intersection corridor. Neither alternative proposes upgrades to the interchange with I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 25, 2020, 11:37:00 AM
^

It’s been a couple weeks since I’ve read it, but IIRC they showed concepts for an I-485 interchange overhaul.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 28, 2020, 05:04:44 PM
Beginning next Monday, NCDOT will close NC-96 just south of Zebulon for one week in order to repair the Snipes Creek culvert.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-28-snipes-creek-culvert-under-nc-96.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-28-snipes-creek-culvert-under-nc-96.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 30, 2020, 10:53:03 AM
This was supposed to be a part of Business Route Interstate Awareness Week but kids and stuff.  However, a feature on what was once Business Loop I-95 in North Carolina from Kenly to Gold Rock (between exits 107 and 145). Some history, it only existed from 1978-1986, the last remaining known signage of the route, and a look at how Interstate 95 transitioned to US 301 in Kenly (never knew it until researching.)  Thanks again to Shaun White for the photo from this week.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/08/local-sign-find-last-remnant-of.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 31, 2020, 10:46:05 AM
There are recent 2 well done 4k videos of Shelby Bypass construction from NC 226 to NC 150 under you tube contributor Hi-Tech Hikers
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 01, 2020, 08:05:31 AM
Lots of delays coming for future highway projects in North Carolina.

REVISIONS TO THE 2020-2029 STIP (9/3/2020) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 01, 2020, 08:20:38 AM
Lots of delays coming for future highway projects in North Carolina.

REVISIONS TO THE 2020-2029 STIP (9/3/2020) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)

:banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2020, 10:35:36 AM
Lots of delays coming for future highway projects in North Carolina.

REVISIONS TO THE 2020-2029 STIP (9/3/2020) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)
Some notable delays unfortunately.

- Two of the US-70 Kinston Bypass segments that were previously funded now will not be funded for construction until after 2029 (construction unfunded)
- US-158 widening east of Elizabeth City will not begin until 2028
- Mid-Currituck Bridge will now not begin until 2022
- US-13 / NC-11 widening / freeway from Ahoskie to Winton will now not begin until 2029
- US-70 between the James City upgrade and Havelock Bypass will now not begin until 2023
- US-17 Hampstead Bypass will now not begin until 2023 and 2026 (phases)
- An interchange along US-17 and one along US-258 / NC-24 in Jacksonville will now not begin until 2029
- Projects to extend I-795 to I-40 will now not begin until after 2029 (construction unfunded)
- I-87 widening between US-64 Bus and US-264 split will now not begin until after 2029 (construction unfunded)
- US-1 freeway upgrade north of Raleigh will now not begin until 2025, 2027, and after 2029 (construction unfunded) (phases)
- Managed freeways and ramp metering in the Raleigh area will now not begin until after 2029 (construction unfunded)
- I-95 widening south of Fayetteville will now not begin until 2023
- Last segment of I-295 in Fayetteville will now not begin until 2023
- Last segment of I-785 north of Greensboro will now not begin until 2029
- US-74 / I-74 upgrade between Rockingham and Laurinburg will now not begin until after 2029 (construction unfunded)
- Western Winston-Salem Beltway will now not begin until 2028 - 2029 (phases)
- I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway between I-74 and I-40 will now not begin until 2023
- Segments of US-74 Shelby Bypass will now not begin until 2024
- I-40 / I-240 / I-26 interchange upgrade will now not begin until after 2029 (construction unfunded)

Some good news... The last leg of NC-540 between I-40 and I-87 has been accelerated from 2029 to 2026, among some other smaller projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 01, 2020, 06:30:56 PM
Lots of delays coming for future highway projects in North Carolina.

REVISIONS TO THE 2020-2029 STIP (9/3/2020) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)

Some good news... The last leg of NC-540 between I-40 and I-87 has been accelerated from 2029 to 2026, among some other smaller projects.
That's a toll project. Here's a question: is there anything else in that list that could be accelerated by making it a toll project? The US 1 upgrade north of Raleigh comes to mind.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2020, 06:45:29 PM
Lots of delays coming for future highway projects in North Carolina.

REVISIONS TO THE 2020-2029 STIP (9/3/2020) (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf)

Some good news... The last leg of NC-540 between I-40 and I-87 has been accelerated from 2029 to 2026, among some other smaller projects.
That's a toll project. Here's a question: is there anything else in that list that could be accelerated by making it a toll project? The US 1 upgrade north of Raleigh comes to mind.
That would require tolling existing general purpose lanes which I imagine they're trying to stay away from, unless they built it full Texas style with continuous 2 - 3 lane frontage roads in each direction with slip ramps. I don't think the current plan calls for that. A number of projects in the Austin and Dallas area have done that to existing roads, shoving a toll road in the middle and keeping the frontage roads the free option that was there before.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on September 03, 2020, 06:47:05 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 03, 2020, 10:23:27 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.

Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 03, 2020, 10:49:46 AM
Putting “modest tolls”  on existing, free freeways during rush hour does not account for the system capacity. While it might create free-flow on the interstate, it would only further congest existing arterial roads.

At least in the case of NC-540, it was a new facility, not an existing. Because traditional funding was lacking, billions of dollars in bonds were taken out to pay for it, and tolls repay those. Now granted, despite this being the case, now both Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, and Greensboro are getting similar billion dollars beltways, toll free. So the question now is, where did the revenue come to pay for those, but not Raleigh?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 03, 2020, 03:30:48 PM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.

Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.



Sorry, I disagree. I-840 in Greensboro has been in the plans since forever. It is never planned to be tolled whether it is built right now or in 20 years. That is why it is not tolled, besides it is almost finished. No reason to toll it. To call it a "pet" project is silly. The same goes for Charlotte's I-485 (even now that they are working on toll express lanes). I-540 was not supposed to be tolled at all.. too bad the same couldn't be said for the rest of the Loop. Blame Raleigh for wanting to toll their loop to speed up progress AND... the growth in the Triangle area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 04, 2020, 03:22:44 PM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.

Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.



Sorry, I disagree. I-840 in Greensboro has been in the plans since forever. It is never planned to be tolled whether it is built right now or in 20 years. That is why it is not tolled, besides it is almost finished. No reason to toll it. To call it a "pet" project is silly. The same goes for Charlotte's I-485 (even now that they are working on toll express lanes). I-540 was not supposed to be tolled at all.. too bad the same couldn't be said for the rest of the Loop. Blame Raleigh for wanting to toll their loop to speed up progress AND... the growth in the Triangle area.

The growth in the Triangle is greater than in the Triad, Triangle is 2+ million, the Triad is 1.6 million.  That constitutes the "pet" project title, especially that it'll be finished prior to the last parts of 540, tolled or not, being started. 

Per Wikipedia, 840 didn't appear as a proposed Interstate in the early 2000's, referencing for 540 per Wikipedia started as early as 1976. 

I do blame Raleigh, i.e. the State Government, for mismanagement of the prioritization of projects not based on population growth but, who will give us what, 840/73 was built for the still not fully operational FedEx hub at PTI, which was approved in the late '90's, thanks to Cary it wasn't going to be here.  This is the nature of politics in NC, not surprising.

Wiki for 840:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina))

Wiki for 540:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_540_and_North_Carolina_Highway_540
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 04, 2020, 05:41:05 PM
^

Raleigh has a beltway, I-440. Greensboro does not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 04, 2020, 06:25:02 PM
^

Raleigh has a beltway, I-440. Greensboro does not.
That's true, and a lot of money was spent upgrading I-440. The last part of that, on the southwest side of the city, is still underway. That's one of two priority projects in Raleigh; the other is upgrading I-40 on the southeastern approach to the city. So the city hasn't been ignored.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 04, 2020, 07:03:15 PM
I imagine the overhaul of the I-440 / I-40 / US-1 interchange will be next, along with 8 lane widening of I-40 between I-87 and I-440 / US-1 where it isn't already. It seems the 6 lane widening of I-87 out to the US-264 split in Zebulon is getting pushed off further and further despite it being a continually growing need. The US-1 freeway north of Raleigh has been delayed again, but is still on track for construction this decade.

Any information regarding the widening the last 4 lane gap of I-40 between US-501 and I-85 to 6 lanes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 04, 2020, 08:44:29 PM
I imagine the overhaul of the I-440 / I-40 / US-1 interchange will be next, along with 8 lane widening of I-40 between I-87 and I-440 / US-1 where it isn't already. It seems the 6 lane widening of I-87 out to the US-264 split in Zebulon is getting pushed off further and further despite it being a continually growing need. The US-1 freeway north of Raleigh has been delayed again, but is still on track for construction this decade.

Any information regarding the widening the last 4 lane gap of I-40 between US-501 and I-85 to 6 lanes?

Last I heard was next year but, that was prior COVID. 

440 is getting and upgrade it needed 20 years ago.  Greensboro lost is traffic bottleneck in "Death Valley", just drove it this week at rush hour in a torrential downpour and only tapped the brakes twice, prior to the 85 bypass that would have been 2 hours in traffic.  The Triangle in a torrential downpour and rush hour, still areas crawling, even with a Beltline and we are still growing.  But alas, still have tolls for what was to be free to give to other areas. 

Disagree all you want but reality is still reality.  Plus, the magic bullet the political shills bet on for public transportation and, also another reason our road dollars went elsewhere, died a quick death due to lack of interest and NIMBY's.  So, not changing my mind.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 05, 2020, 01:01:16 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.

Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.



Sorry, I disagree. I-840 in Greensboro has been in the plans since forever. It is never planned to be tolled whether it is built right now or in 20 years. That is why it is not tolled, besides it is almost finished. No reason to toll it. To call it a "pet" project is silly. The same goes for Charlotte's I-485 (even now that they are working on toll express lanes). I-540 was not supposed to be tolled at all.. too bad the same couldn't be said for the rest of the Loop. Blame Raleigh for wanting to toll their loop to speed up progress AND... the growth in the Triangle area.

The growth in the Triangle is greater than in the Triad, Triangle is 2+ million, the Triad is 1.6 million.  That constitutes the "pet" project title, especially that it'll be finished prior to the last parts of 540, tolled or not, being started. 

Per Wikipedia, 840 didn't appear as a proposed Interstate in the early 2000's, referencing for 540 per Wikipedia started as early as 1976. 

I do blame Raleigh, i.e. the State Government, for mismanagement of the prioritization of projects not based on population growth but, who will give us what, 840/73 was built for the still not fully operational FedEx hub at PTI, which was approved in the late '90's, thanks to Cary it wasn't going to be here.  This is the nature of politics in NC, not surprising.

Wiki for 840:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina))

Wiki for 540:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_540_and_North_Carolina_Highway_540



Don't believe what the Wikipedia said. The beltway for Greensboro has been in the plans since June 1967 though local transportation agenda under the name "Painter Blvd." Funding was the issue for years before it finally come in function.

I-840 designation doesn't show up until 2000's, so basically the beltway has been in the plans since mid 1960's. And I live in Greensboro. Get your facts right next time. Thank you for joining the conversation. Moving on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 05, 2020, 01:12:35 AM
^

Actually since 1947 as a parkway, by 1967 it was enhanced to a freeway loop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 05, 2020, 08:15:55 AM
At least the I-40 widening between I-85 and US 15/501 (I-3306) in Orange County got moved up to 2021. I hate that it will be another five years before the widening starts on I-85 from NC 273 to US 321 (I-5719), and seven years until the I-85/I-485 improvements (I-6016) will start. That section has turned into a complete cluster.

The Rutherfordton bypass was delayed a couple of years, but will still start before the rest of the Shelby bypass.  :rolleyes:

What I'm curious about with some of these delays is what it means for the prioritization process and "committed" projects. Let's take a small, $7 million project in Polk County for example. I-4729B has already gone through preliminary engineering, and probably final design. Right-of-way acquisition was this year, and construction was scheduled to start in 2021. First it was delayed until 2024, but was still a committed and "deliverable" project in the first five years of the STIP. Now it's been delayed another five years until 2029/post-year, placing it in the "developmental program." If I recall correctly, projects in the developmental program are subject to reprioritization.

How is it beneficial to anyone to have a project go through the environmental and engineering process and acquire right-of-way, only to delay a project a decade and potentially have it removed from the STIP? How much re-work, new work, etc. (i.e., MONEY) will be required to prepare this project again a decade from now? Why can't the NCDOT deliver committed projects before adding new projects to the STIP? You'd think there'd be some sort of grandfathering and committal to clearing out backlog, then focus on prioritization of new projects going forward. The STI law was passed in 2013, yet here we are, still unable to deliver existing projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 05, 2020, 08:27:07 AM
Of course it doesn't help that the General Assembly slashed half a billion dollars from NCDOT's budget this year, on top of all the other funding issues. I'm assuming this amounts to a slap on the wrist to NCDOT due to the poor audit this year that reflected very badly on the department.

Highways projects are typically at the top of every politician's list. Project delays in WNC have already made the news (https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/09/04/26-connector-project-faces-delays-ncdot-schedule-revision/5690588002/) there. Money will start to show up again now that NCDOT has come back with "guess what, you know that highway project you wanted in your middle-of-nowhere district? It's been delayed five years. Good luck with your re-election." And there's one thing all politicians are good at: insert new tax/registration increase/user fee here.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 08, 2020, 09:37:26 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.

Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.



Sorry, I disagree. I-840 in Greensboro has been in the plans since forever. It is never planned to be tolled whether it is built right now or in 20 years. That is why it is not tolled, besides it is almost finished. No reason to toll it. To call it a "pet" project is silly. The same goes for Charlotte's I-485 (even now that they are working on toll express lanes). I-540 was not supposed to be tolled at all.. too bad the same couldn't be said for the rest of the Loop. Blame Raleigh for wanting to toll their loop to speed up progress AND... the growth in the Triangle area.

The growth in the Triangle is greater than in the Triad, Triangle is 2+ million, the Triad is 1.6 million.  That constitutes the "pet" project title, especially that it'll be finished prior to the last parts of 540, tolled or not, being started. 

Per Wikipedia, 840 didn't appear as a proposed Interstate in the early 2000's, referencing for 540 per Wikipedia started as early as 1976. 

I do blame Raleigh, i.e. the State Government, for mismanagement of the prioritization of projects not based on population growth but, who will give us what, 840/73 was built for the still not fully operational FedEx hub at PTI, which was approved in the late '90's, thanks to Cary it wasn't going to be here.  This is the nature of politics in NC, not surprising.

Wiki for 840:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_840_(North_Carolina))

Wiki for 540:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_540_and_North_Carolina_Highway_540



Don't believe what the Wikipedia said. The beltway for Greensboro has been in the plans since June 1967 though local transportation agenda under the name "Painter Blvd." Funding was the issue for years before it finally come in function.

I-840 designation doesn't show up until 2000's, so basically the beltway has been in the plans since mid 1960's. And I live in Greensboro. Get your facts right next time. Thank you for joining the conversation. Moving on.

Live in Durham, been in NC since '93, have had family live in the Triad before everything was built so yeah have experience, so you have your opinion and I have mine.  Ditto moving on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 08, 2020, 09:42:57 AM
Of course it doesn't help that the General Assembly slashed half a billion dollars from NCDOT's budget this year, on top of all the other funding issues. I'm assuming this amounts to a slap on the wrist to NCDOT due to the poor audit this year that reflected very badly on the department.

Highways projects are typically at the top of every politician's list. Project delays in WNC have already made the news (https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2020/09/04/26-connector-project-faces-delays-ncdot-schedule-revision/5690588002/) there. Money will start to show up again now that NCDOT has come back with "guess what, you know that highway project you wanted in your middle-of-nowhere district? It's been delayed five years. Good luck with your re-election." And there's one thing all politicians are good at: insert new tax/registration increase/user fee here.

Yep, don't be surprised once we go to Phase 2.6598781818 whatever that magically the politicians find the money to build the necessary projects that have been delayed for over a decade.  Unless Cooper is ousted, then the money will show up hidden in some of the Federal Emergency Financing.  Only time will tell.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 09, 2020, 10:01:35 PM
"In 1954, the city of Greensboro hired W.F. Babcock, an engineering professor at North Carolina State College and later state highway administrator, to create an urban road plan for the city.  That plan included a loop.  Thirty-Five years later, moneys from the Highway Trust Fund made possible the long-envisioned roadway, to be known as Painter Boulevard and designated as I-840."

Source: Paving Tobacco Road - A Century of Progress by the North Carolina Department of Tranportation by Walter R. Turner.  Page 101. 2003.

--Adam
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 09, 2020, 10:14:49 PM
^

Actually since 1947 as a parkway, by 1967 it was enhanced to a freeway loop.

When I saw you correct it to 1947 - I was like I know it was well before 1967 when they opened the first section in 2003 or whenever it was they mentioned how it was well over 40 years in the making.

And proof:
The genesis of the superhighway now under construction dates to a June 1948 document from the city Planning and Zoning Commission that described the Loop as part of “a comprehensive thoroughfare system for Greensboro, based on the existing form of the city, designed to meet present and future needs and yet flexible enough to meet any unexpected shifting.”

https://greensboro.com/news/local_news/years-of-road-planning-in-greensboro-takes-concrete-shape/article_f733e1a2-6f3e-11e7-ae00-e3274d83b4c0.html

the Wikipedia 840 article also mentions the 1948 plan.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on September 10, 2020, 09:06:41 AM
^

Actually since 1947 as a parkway, by 1967 it was enhanced to a freeway loop.

When I saw you correct it to 1947 - I was like I know it was well before 1967 when they opened the first section in 2003 or whenever it was they mentioned how it was well over 40 years in the making.

And proof:
The genesis of the superhighway now under construction dates to a June 1948 document from the city Planning and Zoning Commission that described the Loop as part of “a comprehensive thoroughfare system for Greensboro, based on the existing form of the city, designed to meet present and future needs and yet flexible enough to meet any unexpected shifting.”

https://greensboro.com/news/local_news/years-of-road-planning-in-greensboro-takes-concrete-shape/article_f733e1a2-6f3e-11e7-ae00-e3274d83b4c0.html

the Wikipedia 840 article also mentions the 1948 plan.


I would classify this as a maybe at best, as in, Greensboro wanted loops.  But given some of the outermost loop in the 1948 plan was built and is not I-840's path, this may not be the genesis of I-840.

See pg. 13 here (easiest to download as a pdf) - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/632/rec/10

The outermost routings are not as far out as the Greensboro beltway in any direction.  Some of what was the outermost 1948 plan was built - Bryan Blvd and Cone Blvd are along its path.  The southern part of the outermost proposal is I-40 and I-85 Bus.  The easternmost leg is Franklin Blvd and the westernmost is Muirs Chapel Rd and Jefferson Rd

The Babcock plan (see pdf pg. 20 at https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.nc.gov%2Fncdcr%2Fhistoric-preservation-office%2FPDFs%2FER%252018-4253.pdf&psig=AOvVaw0YLlLwa54Q5Dflw4Qudtpz&ust=1599820430435000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAMQjB1qFwoTCLjLt-bH3usCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAK) is not substantially different from the 1948 plan.

The 1965 throroughfare plan has about 3/4 of I-840s path pretty close to what is built, but as part of two different loop/bypasses (they actually form a spiral).  See pg. 47 at http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/6081/rec/9.  Of specific note is also on pg. 45 is they define the three loops first identified in 1948 which were all built to some degree.

I-840 is the combination of the US 29 Bypass (Painter and Hines Blvds.), the Southern leg of the Outer Loop (Frink Blvd), and a slightly altered east leg of the outer loop (Brower Blvd)


This 1967 report (see pdf pg 23) shows I-840's current path - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/347/rec/26

I did not locate a document that changed the plan to have the full Greensboro Beltway as being built but the change to have this was between 1965-67.

BTW, High Point was supposed to get a beltway too - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/7394/rec/10
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on September 10, 2020, 09:50:06 AM
I didn’t know the Mid-Currituck Bridge was even imminent.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 10, 2020, 10:55:17 AM
I didn’t know the Mid-Currituck Bridge was even imminent.
Been thinking that for the past decade. I'll believe it when it's under construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on September 10, 2020, 11:58:43 AM
I didn’t know the Mid-Currituck Bridge was even imminent.
Been thinking that for the past decade. I'll believe it when it's under construction.
I’ll believe it when it opens to the public.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 10, 2020, 12:19:40 PM
^
With, according to RE/T groups, an over $50 toll.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on September 10, 2020, 10:55:44 PM
In a typical summer, they’ll be able to charge whatever they want and it’ll still be packed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 10, 2020, 11:17:17 PM
In a typical summer, they’ll be able to charge whatever they want and it’ll still be packed.

I wouldn't be so sure.  I've done the trip to Corolla numerous times, sometimes from Virginia and sometime from Raleigh and points west.  Part of the mystique of the Outer Banks is to hit the surf shops and other tourist things (say Dairy Queen) on the way to the beach (in this case, most folks get a rental house).  Charge too much toll on the bridge, and folks will go hit the night life at Nags Head instead of crossing over to Corolla.

I'm surely going to aggravate folks, but Corolla is technically on the mainland (no through route to Virginia).  The first true island on the Outer Banks is south of the (avoiding saying Bonner) new Basnight Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 11, 2020, 12:07:38 AM
I wouldn't be so sure.  I've done the trip to Corolla numerous times, sometimes from Virginia and sometime from Raleigh and points west.  Part of the mystique of the Outer Banks is to hit the surf shops and other tourist things (say Dairy Queen) on the way to the beach (in this case, most folks get a rental house).  Charge too much toll on the bridge, and folks will go hit the night life at Nags Head instead of crossing over to Corolla.
People already drive to Corolla today, and that route involves the US-158 bridge into Nags Head then going up NC-12.

The bridge would shave off about an hour of travel time from NC-168 / US-158 to Corolla, so they could charge a toll like the Chesapeake Expressway just north of the border ($8 one way during peak weekends) and people would still pay it. If people will pay $8 one way on VA-168 to save 3-5 minutes over 6 miles to drive a short 4 lane 55 mph (should be 65 mph) freeway, they'll definitely pay $8 to save an hour and close to 50 miles. The Expressway is largely dead throughout the year with its off-peak $3 toll, with most people still using VA-168 Business / Battlefield Blvd to avoid the toll portion then rejoining it at Hillcrest Pkwy, but during the summer months it gets quite full with long distance tourist traffic who don't think twice about paying.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on September 11, 2020, 09:03:22 AM
I'd imagine the toll would be closer to that of the CBBT, ie $18-20 during peak months (and probably much lower during the rest of the year)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 11, 2020, 09:37:48 AM
I'd say charge the tourists more and give the permanent residents of Dare, Currituck and Camden counties a free pass.  Yes, some ultra rich will get a break, if they move completely to any of those counties but, the residents, most of the workers for the area, will get the break. 

NC residents outside those counties should also get a better rate than out of state.  Yes, it's prejudicial but, as stated earlier, the tourists will pay for the convenience.

Being that NC tolls by plate or transponder, the Billing would be quite easy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 12, 2020, 08:03:58 AM
I'd say charge the tourists more and give the permanent residents of Dare, Currituck and Camden counties a free pass.  Yes, some ultra rich will get a break, if they move completely to any of those counties but, the residents, most of the workers for the area, will get the break. 

NC residents outside those counties should also get a better rate than out of state.  Yes, it's prejudicial but, as stated earlier, the tourists will pay for the convenience.

Being that NC tolls by plate or transponder, the Billing would be quite easy.

Maryland does this on I-95 with E-ZPass. The mainline toll is $6 instead of $8 for all others, and the harbor tunnels are $3 instead of $4.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 12, 2020, 10:19:15 AM
Now, for my toll rant. Have the turnpike projects in North Carolina been fair? No. There is no reason Greensboro and Winston-Salem should have new loops constructed toll-free while NC 540 "had" to be built as a toll project. Either they're all free or they're all tolled. Same with the widening projects. How was/is there funding to widen I-26 southeast of Asheville, I-40 southeast of Raleigh, I-85 northeast of Charlotte, and I-95 (at least a couple of billion dollars, I’ve lost count), but there was no funding to widen I-77? Every interstate should be widened to at least three free travel lanes before considering toll lanes.

New HOT lanes for somewhere like I-40 between Durham and Raleigh, or I-540 in northern Wake? Sure, go for it. New facility on new location? Fine. If you want to live in Holly Springs and have a convenient commute to RTP every day, you can pay a toll for a shiny new road (I know, just contradicted what I said above). Same with the Monroe Expressway, although it is part of a bigger piece of an important intrastate corridor that should have probably been a "free" bypass, but oh well....

Not that I really support it deep down, but some of the remaining bypasses could benefit from being tolled facilities if it meant expediting the projects, like Kinston and Wadesboro. Want to get to the beach faster? Pay the toll. Don't? OK, stop at the lights through town. I'd give away my first-born child to never have to drive through Shelby again.

However, I don't know if there'd be enough volume/demand or enough daily congestion through the smaller towns to warrant users to take the tolled route. That could result in high tolls to cover the costs, meaning no one would use it and result in losses. The rural bypasses are some of the most expensive highway projects to build, but don’t always have the most benefit.

I'm sure it's written into law somewhere, but why can new projects not use a mix of traditional funding and tolls? Basically, have a low enough toll that would entice 95% of users to pay to use the facility, while the remainder of the cost is covered/subsidized by traditional funding. For example, pay something low like $2 to take a bypass around Kinston. Most people would probably pay that small of an amount for the convenience. Assuming the construction costs could be split 50/50 between tolled and Highway Trust Fund, this would knock the up-front construction cost down from $380 million to $190 million. That could accelerate this project and others, and free up tens of millions of dollars for other projects needed across the state.

Of course raising the federal gas tax for the first time since 1993 to keep up with inflation, increasing fuel efficiency and rising construction costs would be the easiest solution to increase revenue for highway projects, but who wants to pay another nickel per gallon? That’s outrageous.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 12, 2020, 03:55:35 PM
Now, for my toll rant. Have the turnpike projects in North Carolina been fair? No. There is no reason Greensboro and Winston-Salem should have new loops constructed toll-free while NC 540 "had" to be built as a toll project. Either they're all free or they're all tolled. Same with the widening projects. How was/is there funding to widen I-26 southeast of Asheville, I-40 southeast of Raleigh, I-85 northeast of Charlotte, and I-95 (at least a couple of billion dollars, I’ve lost count), but there was no funding to widen I-77? Every interstate should be widened to at least three free travel lanes before considering toll lanes.  <<snipped>>

Toll road construction has also resulted in further delays to other highway projects in North Carolina.  Ever since I moved here 20 years ago, the widening of I-85 between Durham and the I-40 split has been a "Top Five" statewide priority for NCDOT (at least most years).  Yet other projects get bumped up the ladder to get construction funding.  Most of the reasons are obvious, such as widening I-40 from the other leg of the split to Durham (which now has much heavier traffic than I-85 due to the I-885 construction delays on the NC-147 Durham Freeway).  But other projects are jumping up the ladder because of affordability.  Needless to say, greenfield construction with toll road income improves the economics as compared to tight right-of-way projects.  For the record, I-85 doesn't need widening the entire length of this corridor: (1) widening the short stretch to the US-70 west at Exit 170 is needed for capacity, and (2) widening between the two Hillsborough exits is needed for safety improvements.  I'd be surprised if anything gets done in the next 10 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 13, 2020, 02:16:03 AM
^
I-85 north of Durham also does not need widening. The portion between Henderson and the Virginia state line recently underwent a major rehabilitation project which replaced mainline bridges, tore up the road and completely reconstructed it with concrete overlay, and increased vertical clearance under overpasses. No lanes were added in the process. The speed limit was also increased from 65 mph to 70 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 13, 2020, 09:34:35 AM
I remember seeing plans of a NC 24/27 bypass around the town of Locust back in the early 2010s, with discussion on whether it should be routed north of the town or south. Anybody have a clue as to what happened to this project? Seems like it fell of the face of the Earth, and not even Google could give me a straight answer.

I was reminded by this project because I recently traveled NC 24/27, and got a chance to drive on the new Troy bypass. I also remember seeing Albemarle getting a bypass on several maps. I wonder if the state still plans to upgrade this route to an expressway, at least from Charlotte to Fayetteville?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 13, 2020, 02:44:23 PM
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article220664810.html

The only part I don't see becoming a freeway is this part.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-revised-brier-creek-tw-alexander.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-70-brier-creek/Documents/alternative-2-revised-aviation-extension.pdf

"https://prnt.sc/ugmapj" the red part i circled. That ramp is too sharp and it has entrances and exits on it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 13, 2020, 06:21:33 PM
^
I-85 north of Durham also does not need widening. The portion between Henderson and the Virginia state line recently underwent a major rehabilitation project which replaced mainline bridges, tore up the road and completely reconstructed it with concrete overlay, and increased vertical clearance under overpasses. No lanes were added in the process. The speed limit was also increased from 65 mph to 70 mph.
Agreed, except: I'd like to see I-85 widened between Falls Lake and Durham.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on September 13, 2020, 09:48:30 PM
RE: US 70 Freeway conversion in Durham: I wonder why Aviation Parkway will not be controlled access between Glebe Road and US 70? It appears from the conceptual plans that NCDOT plans to extend Aviation Parkway in the future. I assume this extension will not connect with I-85 as a portion of the Northern Durham Parkway anymore.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 13, 2020, 09:50:55 PM
Moved from the Interstate 73/74 thread:

The first 3 mile segment of the I-74 Winston-Salem Beltway between US-421 Salem Pkwy (former I-40 Business) and US-158 is on schedule to open likely this week.
When segments open like this, it's practically useless, or it just lures a few people from their houses onto the highway going to work. AADT would be 1,000 - 5,000 until the whole eastern segment (maybe not the salem parkway to I-74) is completed.
With today's virtually incessant questioning/criticism of public expenditures, periodic openings of segments of this sort are intended not necessarily to be of great real value but more to let the public know that projects are being completed rather than just talked about.  A picture of actual non-construction vehicles rolling down a new freeway is worth the proverbial thousand words.  It also puts pressure on, in this case, NCDOT, to continue to make further progress on a similar schedule (although COVID will likely stretch the completion horizon out by several months if not over a year).  So the PR value of the first segment opened "morphs" into a "what have you done for me lately" situation that'll repeat itself until the full I-74 portion of the beltway is completed.       

It's about time.  In the past four years, NCDOT has gone from completing projects ahead of schedule to dragging out projects to a near standstill.  The NC-119 Bypass around the west side of Mebane has been under construction for more than 4 years.  Although the new DDI was completed in record time, the rest of the project seems to drag on forever.  The next mile north was not opened until this past April, if I recall correctly (and that section is not quite half done).  Further north, he retained fill approaches on both sides of the bridge over the NCRR tracks (leased by Norfolk Southern) has been underway for most of that time, and still not totally filled to grade level.  Other projects in North Carolina seem to be delayed as well.  I can understand why NCDOT might need to halt a project due to funding/cash flow issues, but it makes no sense to doodle around for years on end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on September 14, 2020, 12:28:56 PM
^

Actually since 1947 as a parkway, by 1967 it was enhanced to a freeway loop.

When I saw you correct it to 1947 - I was like I know it was well before 1967 when they opened the first section in 2003 or whenever it was they mentioned how it was well over 40 years in the making.

And proof:
The genesis of the superhighway now under construction dates to a June 1948 document from the city Planning and Zoning Commission that described the Loop as part of “a comprehensive thoroughfare system for Greensboro, based on the existing form of the city, designed to meet present and future needs and yet flexible enough to meet any unexpected shifting.”

https://greensboro.com/news/local_news/years-of-road-planning-in-greensboro-takes-concrete-shape/article_f733e1a2-6f3e-11e7-ae00-e3274d83b4c0.html

the Wikipedia 840 article also mentions the 1948 plan.


I would classify this as a maybe at best, as in, Greensboro wanted loops.  But given some of the outermost loop in the 1948 plan was built and is not I-840's path, this may not be the genesis of I-840.

See pg. 13 here (easiest to download as a pdf) - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/632/rec/10

The outermost routings are not as far out as the Greensboro beltway in any direction.  Some of what was the outermost 1948 plan was built - Bryan Blvd and Cone Blvd are along its path.  The southern part of the outermost proposal is I-40 and I-85 Bus.  The easternmost leg is Franklin Blvd and the westernmost is Muirs Chapel Rd and Jefferson Rd

The Babcock plan (see pdf pg. 20 at https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Ffiles.nc.gov%2Fncdcr%2Fhistoric-preservation-office%2FPDFs%2FER%252018-4253.pdf&psig=AOvVaw0YLlLwa54Q5Dflw4Qudtpz&ust=1599820430435000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAMQjB1qFwoTCLjLt-bH3usCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAK) is not substantially different from the 1948 plan.

The 1965 throroughfare plan has about 3/4 of I-840s path pretty close to what is built, but as part of two different loop/bypasses (they actually form a spiral).  See pg. 47 at http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/6081/rec/9.  Of specific note is also on pg. 45 is they define the three loops first identified in 1948 which were all built to some degree.

I-840 is the combination of the US 29 Bypass (Painter and Hines Blvds.), the Southern leg of the Outer Loop (Frink Blvd), and a slightly altered east leg of the outer loop (Brower Blvd)


This 1967 report (see pdf pg 23) shows I-840's current path - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/347/rec/26

I did not locate a document that changed the plan to have the full Greensboro Beltway as being built but the change to have this was between 1965-67.

BTW, High Point was supposed to get a beltway too - http://libcdm1.uncg.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/UrbanDevGSO/id/7394/rec/10

Michael:

I would say that the Outer Loop evolved from those pre-1967 plans.  The News Record article mentions how the western side moved closer to the airport as a result of avoiding a controversial plan to be closer to Guilford College.   Thanks for the links - i was not aware of them and have cataloged them accordingly!

Adam
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 16, 2020, 10:17:08 AM
As part of the I-40 widening project in the area, the loop ramp from I-40 West to US-70 West in Garner (Exit 306A) will be closed this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-16-i-40-west-loop-us-70-west-weekend-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-16-i-40-west-loop-us-70-west-weekend-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 21, 2020, 02:19:41 PM
Now, for my toll rant. Have the turnpike projects in North Carolina been fair? No. There is no reason Greensboro and Winston-Salem should have new loops constructed toll-free while NC 540 "had" to be built as a toll project. Either they're all free or they're all tolled. Same with the widening projects. How was/is there funding to widen I-26 southeast of Asheville, I-40 southeast of Raleigh, I-85 northeast of Charlotte, and I-95 (at least a couple of billion dollars, I’ve lost count), but there was no funding to widen I-77? Every interstate should be widened to at least three free travel lanes before considering toll lanes.

New HOT lanes for somewhere like I-40 between Durham and Raleigh, or I-540 in northern Wake? Sure, go for it. New facility on new location? Fine. If you want to live in Holly Springs and have a convenient commute to RTP every day, you can pay a toll for a shiny new road (I know, just contradicted what I said above). Same with the Monroe Expressway, although it is part of a bigger piece of an important intrastate corridor that should have probably been a "free" bypass, but oh well....

Not that I really support it deep down, but some of the remaining bypasses could benefit from being tolled facilities if it meant expediting the projects, like Kinston and Wadesboro. Want to get to the beach faster? Pay the toll. Don't? OK, stop at the lights through town. I'd give away my first-born child to never have to drive through Shelby again.

However, I don't know if there'd be enough volume/demand or enough daily congestion through the smaller towns to warrant users to take the tolled route. That could result in high tolls to cover the costs, meaning no one would use it and result in losses. The rural bypasses are some of the most expensive highway projects to build, but don’t always have the most benefit.

I'm sure it's written into law somewhere, but why can new projects not use a mix of traditional funding and tolls? Basically, have a low enough toll that would entice 95% of users to pay to use the facility, while the remainder of the cost is covered/subsidized by traditional funding. For example, pay something low like $2 to take a bypass around Kinston. Most people would probably pay that small of an amount for the convenience. Assuming the construction costs could be split 50/50 between tolled and Highway Trust Fund, this would knock the up-front construction cost down from $380 million to $190 million. That could accelerate this project and others, and free up tens of millions of dollars for other projects needed across the state.

Of course raising the federal gas tax for the first time since 1993 to keep up with inflation, increasing fuel efficiency and rising construction costs would be the easiest solution to increase revenue for highway projects, but who wants to pay another nickel per gallon? That’s outrageous.

NC works really hard at attempting to be fair in allocating funds across the state, one with an unusually continuous spread out population. The resources must be spread quite thinly to all 100 counties though the needs are tremendous in all parts of the state.

Raleigh may have extra pressure put on it to not appear like it is receiving more funding than other areas, and that's why all the state agencies are housed in old, outdated, and leaky buildings. It's to suffer so that the rest of the state can afford what they need.

The reality is exactly the opposite of what Charlotte has always maintained that it was being shortchanged while the decision makers in Raleigh favored the Capital city and splurged on it. But Charlotte folks have a weird perception that they are all that's in the state, and the rural counties are something to disassociate themselves with and nothing of any worth, while Triangle residents recognize the whole state as more or less being equal in importance.

So you should do your research on all those new routes around the Triad and you'll discover that most were to replace old routes that didn't meet current safety standards. The new I-40 was built to avoid the hilly old interstate through Winston-Salem. The new I-85 South of Greensboro was to end having to got through the old interchange that merged with I-40 which was one of the most dangerous with all kinds of macabre nicknames.

I-540 could have remained as a free roadway, but it would have been 30 years before its importance warranted a massive chunk of funding competing with more urgent needs in other parts of the state. It is also a large loop, equal in size to Charlotte's outerbelt and I-285 in Atlanta. With Charlotte's outerbelt still not finished at that time, it wouldn't have looked good for Raleigh to be getting its 2nd loop funded by the whole state before Charlotte even had one yet.

Wake County is all Yankee now anyway and they have no problem with the tolling aspect as it will mainly be used by the transplants in Southern Wake anyway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 21, 2020, 02:42:32 PM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 21, 2020, 04:41:53 PM
So you should do your research on all those new routes around the Triad and you'll discover that most were to replace old routes that didn't meet current safety standards. The new I-40 was built to avoid the hilly old interstate through Winston-Salem.
IIRC, the I-40 relocation near Winston-Salem was built with 90/10 federal funding since the original I-40 was built as a state highway in the 1950s before the interstate highway system using state funding. I-40 through Raleigh was built in the 1970s and 1980s with 90/10 funding. I-440 was built as a US-64 / US-1 bypass in the 1960s and 1970s with state funding and was not designated an interstate highway until the 1980s.

With Charlotte's outerbelt still not finished at that time, it wouldn't have looked good for Raleigh to be getting its 2nd loop funded by the whole state before Charlotte even had one yet.
Technically Charlotte had I-277. Raleigh's northern I-540 and Charlotte's I-485 had portions both under construction in the 1990s and early 2000s.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.
US-1 may have been the historical route in for northeast -> Raleigh traffic, though it seems nowadays, especially with the completion of the US-64 / I-87 Knightdale Bypass, the prominent route in would be I-95 -> US-64. It's all 70 mph freeway vs. around 30 miles of 55 mph arterial along US-1, plus urban stop-and-go traffic from Wake Forest to I-440. It's also easier for north-south traffic to bypass Richmond-Petersburg by taking I-295 to I-95 South vs. I-95 through Richmond and Petersburg to I-85 South.

Now, once / if US-1 is ever upgraded between I-85 and I-440, it may be more attractive and could reduce some traffic on both I-95 and US-64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 22, 2020, 11:16:57 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.

Missed the 25+ years as a Triangle resident, originally from PA, moved here in December of '93, my first impression with US 1 was a 2 lane road south of Henderson all the way to Wake Forest when it went back to 4 lanes.  So, that impression was scary for a true Metro area.  US 64 and I-95 was the alternate until US 1 was 4 laned and still pretty much the alternate for most Northeast travelers if they are going to the eastern areas of the Triangle.

Until I got closer to Raleigh itself and saw the Beltline, I-440, and I-40 South of downtown, was under the impression Raleigh was a city in middle of nothing but rural country for miles. 

With the growth of the Triangle the road system grew with it, decent pace for a while due to the steady income and management of that said income revenue.  By about 2005, the road projects seem to start slowing down, after I-540 reached Knightdale and the US 64 bypass, I-87.  The growth kept happening but, the project money went elsewhere.  This is also despite a Gas Tax increase that had to be capped from getting out of control and being the highest in the South.  Needs based construction was not done and still has not since then so, no more future tolls for the Triangle, except NC 540 and, start reevaluating is going to be needed to get the funding from projects that don't have a true needs base for completion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 22, 2020, 01:57:05 PM
Demolition work on the northbound US-701 bridge over the Cape Fear River in Elizabethtown has begun. A separate contract to replace both bridges with a single 4-lane bridge is planned to be awarded this fall.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-11-us-701-north-bridge-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-08-11-us-701-north-bridge-demo.aspx)

The contract has been awarded.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-22-bladen-county-bridge-coming.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-22-bladen-county-bridge-coming.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 22, 2020, 07:42:00 PM
RE: US 70 Freeway conversion in Durham: I wonder why Aviation Parkway will not be controlled access between Glebe Road and US 70? It appears from the conceptual plans that NCDOT plans to extend Aviation Parkway in the future. I assume this extension will not connect with I-85 as a portion of the Northern Durham Parkway anymore.
where that diverging diamond cuts off, I'm sure it will still be extended. It's included in the CTP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 22, 2020, 09:17:18 PM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.

Missed the 25+ years as a Triangle resident, originally from PA, moved here in December of '93, my first impression with US 1 was a 2 lane road south of Henderson all the way to Wake Forest when it went back to 4 lanes.  So, that impression was scary for a true Metro area.  US 64 and I-95 was the alternate until US 1 was 4 laned and still pretty much the alternate for most Northeast travelers if they are going to the eastern areas of the Triangle.

Until I got closer to Raleigh itself and saw the Beltline, I-440, and I-40 South of downtown, was under the impression Raleigh was a city in middle of nothing but rural country for miles. 

With the growth of the Triangle the road system grew with it, decent pace for a while due to the steady income and management of that said income revenue.  By about 2005, the road projects seem to start slowing down, after I-540 reached Knightdale and the US 64 bypass, I-87.  The growth kept happening but, the project money went elsewhere.  This is also despite a Gas Tax increase that had to be capped from getting out of control and being the highest in the South.  Needs based construction was not done and still has not since then so, no more future tolls for the Triangle, except NC 540 and, start reevaluating is going to be needed to get the funding from projects that don't have a true needs base for completion.

The one good thing Gov. McCrory did was to totally revamp how NCDOT allocated funding for road project.

No longer is 30% of highway funding equally given to every division. That took precious revenue from urgent needs and was spent in counties that had no need for it. One such project was the beginning of a loop for Henderson though it's only a couple of miles long.

Now every road project is evaluated and scored based on how much it will help a region's mobility in general along with other criteria.

The top scoring projects get the funding. In my home county of Franklin bordering Wake, the long promised (40 years) 4-laning of US401 finally got some funding in the 2000s, but once they switched to the needs-based scoring, it barely missed the threshold and was tabled. Needless to say everyone was upet. Only after their revenue exceeded projections in the late 2000s was the project active again. Thank goodness.

But I too am frustrated with the slow progress of all road projects in the state. How is it cheaper or better to take so long to complete these projects? Is the same construction company alternating working on several other projects simultaneously? We ain't got all day, I'm getting old, lol.

NC is one of the few states whose DOT manages all roads including county roads. The gas tax has historically been higher because of this, and counties would be taxing residents in other ways if they had to maintain their roads.

I like that NCDOT does it all, because there is consistency that's noticeable across the state.

The state has a highway trust fund that many states do not keep that makes money itself, though it has often been raided for other uses in times of budget shortfalls. I don't believe it is raided all the time, but during bad times it's a necessary evil.

I remember when US1 switched back and forth between 2 and 4 lanes North of Raleigh.  But in the early 90's the Triangle just had 900,000-1,000,000 people, only 700,000 in 1988 when I was at NC State. More than 2,000,000 live there now.

Believe me, NC is about the most prolific builder of new highways in the entire country except for Texas. NCDOT also maintains the 2nd largest network of over 80,000 miles of roads, Texas is number 1.

NCDOT also produces a lot with about $6 billion a year. Gas prices are higher in Atlanta so after paying more per gallon we get zero new roads over the last 25 years. Florida spends $13 billion a year on its roads and they are stellar.


NC spends about 2 million on maintenance of those 80,000 miles and uses $3 billion a year for new highways and improvements.
Where that same amount of revenue goes here in Georgia is beyond me so be grateful.

At the dawn of the automobile NC built good roads as it's way of keeping up with the Northeastern states, at one point having the most miles of paved roads in the country and earning the nickname "the Good Roads State".

Those roads are now aged and reaching the end of their service life much like in Pennsylavania.

NC puts out a report of the condition of the state's infrastructure every two years. The infrastructure is estimated to have a worth of $575 billion.

I've lived in GA, CA, NY, MA, and NJ  and I have more respect for NC's high standards now than ever. Very few other states hold themselves to the high standard that NC does for all state functions and agencies.

Georgia is utterly primitive in every aspect of the functions performed by the state. The DOT here erects signs on the side of the highway that last about 3 weeks before falling down.

While the I-85/I-40 duplex from Greensboro to Durham looks immaculate as it approaches 25 years of age. They do it right the first time and don't have to spend money on maintenance for a long time.

Even road enthusiasts on here that live in other states consider NCDOT among their favorites.

The gas tax in NC got a cap several years ago but that was to help it pass into law, and it mandated that from now on the tax would be pegged to rise with inflation so that its spending power wouldn't diminish too much.

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on September 22, 2020, 10:21:35 PM
RE: US 70 Freeway conversion in Durham: I wonder why Aviation Parkway will not be controlled access between Glebe Road and US 70? It appears from the conceptual plans that NCDOT plans to extend Aviation Parkway in the future. I assume this extension will not connect with I-85 as a portion of the Northern Durham Parkway anymore.
where that diverging diamond cuts off, I'm sure it will still be extended. It's included in the CTP.

Is the half-DDI now the selected alternative? I remember seeing another alternative that was a simple trumpet interchange.

Also, is the Aviation Parkway extension from I-540 to US 70 still being planned as a freeway? I saw an old study that indicated plans to complete the Aviation Parkway to US 70 as a freeway and then extend it as a surface road up around the east side of Durham to I-85. The "extension" included in the US 70 project is just a connector down to that other local road and doesn't connect to the existing freeway near I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: goobnav on September 23, 2020, 03:06:59 PM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.

Missed the 25+ years as a Triangle resident, originally from PA, moved here in December of '93, my first impression with US 1 was a 2 lane road south of Henderson all the way to Wake Forest when it went back to 4 lanes.  So, that impression was scary for a true Metro area.  US 64 and I-95 was the alternate until US 1 was 4 laned and still pretty much the alternate for most Northeast travelers if they are going to the eastern areas of the Triangle.

Until I got closer to Raleigh itself and saw the Beltline, I-440, and I-40 South of downtown, was under the impression Raleigh was a city in middle of nothing but rural country for miles. 

With the growth of the Triangle the road system grew with it, decent pace for a while due to the steady income and management of that said income revenue.  By about 2005, the road projects seem to start slowing down, after I-540 reached Knightdale and the US 64 bypass, I-87.  The growth kept happening but, the project money went elsewhere.  This is also despite a Gas Tax increase that had to be capped from getting out of control and being the highest in the South.  Needs based construction was not done and still has not since then so, no more future tolls for the Triangle, except NC 540 and, start reevaluating is going to be needed to get the funding from projects that don't have a true needs base for completion.

The one good thing Gov. McCrory did was to totally revamp how NCDOT allocated funding for road project.

No longer is 30% of highway funding equally given to every division. That took precious revenue from urgent needs and was spent in counties that had no need for it. One such project was the beginning of a loop for Henderson though it's only a couple of miles long.

Now every road project is evaluated and scored based on how much it will help a region's mobility in general along with other criteria.

The top scoring projects get the funding. In my home county of Franklin bordering Wake, the long promised (40 years) 4-laning of US401 finally got some funding in the 2000s, but once they switched to the needs-based scoring, it barely missed the threshold and was tabled. Needless to say everyone was upet. Only after their revenue exceeded projections in the late 2000s was the project active again. Thank goodness.

But I too am frustrated with the slow progress of all road projects in the state. How is it cheaper or better to take so long to complete these projects? Is the same construction company alternating working on several other projects simultaneously? We ain't got all day, I'm getting old, lol.

NC is one of the few states whose DOT manages all roads including county roads. The gas tax has historically been higher because of this, and counties would be taxing residents in other ways if they had to maintain their roads.

I like that NCDOT does it all, because there is consistency that's noticeable across the state.

The state has a highway trust fund that many states do not keep that makes money itself, though it has often been raided for other uses in times of budget shortfalls. I don't believe it is raided all the time, but during bad times it's a necessary evil.

I remember when US1 switched back and forth between 2 and 4 lanes North of Raleigh.  But in the early 90's the Triangle just had 900,000-1,000,000 people, only 700,000 in 1988 when I was at NC State. More than 2,000,000 live there now.

Believe me, NC is about the most prolific builder of new highways in the entire country except for Texas. NCDOT also maintains the 2nd largest network of over 80,000 miles of roads, Texas is number 1.

NCDOT also produces a lot with about $6 billion a year. Gas prices are higher in Atlanta so after paying more per gallon we get zero new roads over the last 25 years. Florida spends $13 billion a year on its roads and they are stellar.


NC spends about 2 million on maintenance of those 80,000 miles and uses $3 billion a year for new highways and improvements.
Where that same amount of revenue goes here in Georgia is beyond me so be grateful.

At the dawn of the automobile NC built good roads as it's way of keeping up with the Northeastern states, at one point having the most miles of paved roads in the country and earning the nickname "the Good Roads State".

Those roads are now aged and reaching the end of their service life much like in Pennsylavania.

NC puts out a report of the condition of the state's infrastructure every two years. The infrastructure is estimated to have a worth of $575 billion.

I've lived in GA, CA, NY, MA, and NJ  and I have more respect for NC's high standards now than ever. Very few other states hold themselves to the high standard that NC does for all state functions and agencies.

Georgia is utterly primitive in every aspect of the functions performed by the state. The DOT here erects signs on the side of the highway that last about 3 weeks before falling down.

While the I-85/I-40 duplex from Greensboro to Durham looks immaculate as it approaches 25 years of age. They do it right the first time and don't have to spend money on maintenance for a long time.

Even road enthusiasts on here that live in other states consider NCDOT among their favorites.

The gas tax in NC got a cap several years ago but that was to help it pass into law, and it mandated that from now on the tax would be pegged to rise with inflation so that its spending power wouldn't diminish too much.

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.



Totally agree with the span wire, especially when we get hurricanes and those lights start dropping, what a mess.

401 is finally getting 4 laned to Louisburg which is now a ridiculous need being that people moved out of Wake county to Franklin when they blued the county government and increased the tax load.  Yeah, they are trying again in Franklin and running into the local friction of "not a chance in hell" from the farmers and rural residents.  Have family near Bunn so definitely on that pulse.

We'll see come November if the projects change but, hoping for the best.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 24, 2020, 11:08:16 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.

Missed the 25+ years as a Triangle resident, originally from PA, moved here in December of '93, my first impression with US 1 was a 2 lane road south of Henderson all the way to Wake Forest when it went back to 4 lanes.  So, that impression was scary for a true Metro area.  US 64 and I-95 was the alternate until US 1 was 4 laned and still pretty much the alternate for most Northeast travelers if they are going to the eastern areas of the Triangle.

Until I got closer to Raleigh itself and saw the Beltline, I-440, and I-40 South of downtown, was under the impression Raleigh was a city in middle of nothing but rural country for miles. 

With the growth of the Triangle the road system grew with it, decent pace for a while due to the steady income and management of that said income revenue.  By about 2005, the road projects seem to start slowing down, after I-540 reached Knightdale and the US 64 bypass, I-87.  The growth kept happening but, the project money went elsewhere.  This is also despite a Gas Tax increase that had to be capped from getting out of control and being the highest in the South.  Needs based construction was not done and still has not since then so, no more future tolls for the Triangle, except NC 540 and, start reevaluating is going to be needed to get the funding from projects that don't have a true needs base for completion.

The one good thing Gov. McCrory did was to totally revamp how NCDOT allocated funding for road project.

No longer is 30% of highway funding equally given to every division. That took precious revenue from urgent needs and was spent in counties that had no need for it. One such project was the beginning of a loop for Henderson though it's only a couple of miles long.

Now every road project is evaluated and scored based on how much it will help a region's mobility in general along with other criteria.

The top scoring projects get the funding. In my home county of Franklin bordering Wake, the long promised (40 years) 4-laning of US401 finally got some funding in the 2000s, but once they switched to the needs-based scoring, it barely missed the threshold and was tabled. Needless to say everyone was upet. Only after their revenue exceeded projections in the late 2000s was the project active again. Thank goodness.

But I too am frustrated with the slow progress of all road projects in the state. How is it cheaper or better to take so long to complete these projects? Is the same construction company alternating working on several other projects simultaneously? We ain't got all day, I'm getting old, lol.

NC is one of the few states whose DOT manages all roads including county roads. The gas tax has historically been higher because of this, and counties would be taxing residents in other ways if they had to maintain their roads.

I like that NCDOT does it all, because there is consistency that's noticeable across the state.

The state has a highway trust fund that many states do not keep that makes money itself, though it has often been raided for other uses in times of budget shortfalls. I don't believe it is raided all the time, but during bad times it's a necessary evil.

I remember when US1 switched back and forth between 2 and 4 lanes North of Raleigh.  But in the early 90's the Triangle just had 900,000-1,000,000 people, only 700,000 in 1988 when I was at NC State. More than 2,000,000 live there now.

Believe me, NC is about the most prolific builder of new highways in the entire country except for Texas. NCDOT also maintains the 2nd largest network of over 80,000 miles of roads, Texas is number 1.

NCDOT also produces a lot with about $6 billion a year. Gas prices are higher in Atlanta so after paying more per gallon we get zero new roads over the last 25 years. Florida spends $13 billion a year on its roads and they are stellar.


NC spends about 2 million on maintenance of those 80,000 miles and uses $3 billion a year for new highways and improvements.
Where that same amount of revenue goes here in Georgia is beyond me so be grateful.

At the dawn of the automobile NC built good roads as it's way of keeping up with the Northeastern states, at one point having the most miles of paved roads in the country and earning the nickname "the Good Roads State".

Those roads are now aged and reaching the end of their service life much like in Pennsylavania.

NC puts out a report of the condition of the state's infrastructure every two years. The infrastructure is estimated to have a worth of $575 billion.

I've lived in GA, CA, NY, MA, and NJ  and I have more respect for NC's high standards now than ever. Very few other states hold themselves to the high standard that NC does for all state functions and agencies.

Georgia is utterly primitive in every aspect of the functions performed by the state. The DOT here erects signs on the side of the highway that last about 3 weeks before falling down.

While the I-85/I-40 duplex from Greensboro to Durham looks immaculate as it approaches 25 years of age. They do it right the first time and don't have to spend money on maintenance for a long time.

Even road enthusiasts on here that live in other states consider NCDOT among their favorites.

The gas tax in NC got a cap several years ago but that was to help it pass into law, and it mandated that from now on the tax would be pegged to rise with inflation so that its spending power wouldn't diminish too much.

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.



Totally agree with the span wire, especially when we get hurricanes and those lights start dropping, what a mess.

401 is finally getting 4 laned to Louisburg which is now a ridiculous need being that people moved out of Wake county to Franklin when they blued the county government and increased the tax load.  Yeah, they are trying again in Franklin and running into the local friction of "not a chance in hell" from the farmers and rural residents.  Have family near Bunn so definitely on that pulse.

We'll see come November if the projects change but, hoping for the best.

Franklin County is poor and it has long wanted US401 to be 4-laned to lure industry to the county. Plus 60% of workers who live in Franklin work in another county, mainly Wake and Durham, so locals have endured a 2-lane heavily traveled highway for decades. There have been many killed on that highway also.

You may be right about cities in Wake with high taxes, but I think Franklin County's tax rate is higher than Wake, just because only 70,000 people must pay to fund everything where as Wake has over a million people.

Franklin County folks have faith that a 4-lane US401 will bring prosperity. Because of all Triangle areas, Franklin is the least Ralegh-fied and hasn't become sophisticated yet. It's a different world, think drab clothing and lots of willie nelson gray ponytail types of people.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 24, 2020, 11:19:27 AM
I think all the freeways in the Triangle should become managed facilities. Low/no tolls when uncongested; modest tolls to reduce congestion.


Ah, no, as a Triangle resident for 25+ years.  The tolls for "rush" hour will cause more traffic on the side roads and just shift the congestion.  The tolls now are ridiculous and truly unwarranted. 

Bad money management from the current and previous State Administrations have caused essential projects to be placed on the "back burner" for "pet" projects and electoral advantageous projects.  Example, Charlotte's loop completed with no tolls, electoral advantageous, Greensboro's loop no tolls, "pet" project.  The Triangle has the traffic loads equal if not greater than the Triad, if any tolls, I-840 should be tolled either with FHWA exception or downgrade it to a NC Highway so it can be tolled.  540 should not be tolled at all but, the State got it's way and now a revenue stream it will not let go of until it is forced to relinquish.

Refer to my explanation of what's free versus tolled above ^.

If they tolled US1 or other existing highways in the Triangle, then people would demand all their gas taxes paid over the last 25 years to be refunded, because that's what paid for the roads to be built.

US 1 has been the Gateway to Raleigh for every state in the Northeast for a long time, even before interstates existed.

It is the first impression of Raleigh for millions of people seeing it for the first time from the populous Northeast corridor.

I experienced what they see on an overnight bus ride home from NYC on New Years Eve 2003. At night it was a sea of lights not obscured by trees' summertime leaves that grew in density for quite a long duration. It was impressive, In the daytime it wouldn't have been because you'd see the rural appearance of US1 in Franklin and Northern Wake counties.

I don't want them to make this highway any less attractive than it already is, and converting it to more of a freeway doesn't sound pretty and it hurts businesses along the way too.

Tolls have always been scheduled to rise periodically to pay off the construction bonds, and they successfully refinanced the debt 2 or 3 times saving tens of millions in interest. Excellent money management is what you meant to say.

There are plenty of checks and balances to make what you're accusing them of doing almost impossible.

Missed the 25+ years as a Triangle resident, originally from PA, moved here in December of '93, my first impression with US 1 was a 2 lane road south of Henderson all the way to Wake Forest when it went back to 4 lanes.  So, that impression was scary for a true Metro area.  US 64 and I-95 was the alternate until US 1 was 4 laned and still pretty much the alternate for most Northeast travelers if they are going to the eastern areas of the Triangle.

Until I got closer to Raleigh itself and saw the Beltline, I-440, and I-40 South of downtown, was under the impression Raleigh was a city in middle of nothing but rural country for miles. 

With the growth of the Triangle the road system grew with it, decent pace for a while due to the steady income and management of that said income revenue.  By about 2005, the road projects seem to start slowing down, after I-540 reached Knightdale and the US 64 bypass, I-87.  The growth kept happening but, the project money went elsewhere.  This is also despite a Gas Tax increase that had to be capped from getting out of control and being the highest in the South.  Needs based construction was not done and still has not since then so, no more future tolls for the Triangle, except NC 540 and, start reevaluating is going to be needed to get the funding from projects that don't have a true needs base for completion.

The one good thing Gov. McCrory did was to totally revamp how NCDOT allocated funding for road project.

No longer is 30% of highway funding equally given to every division. That took precious revenue from urgent needs and was spent in counties that had no need for it. One such project was the beginning of a loop for Henderson though it's only a couple of miles long.

Now every road project is evaluated and scored based on how much it will help a region's mobility in general along with other criteria.

The top scoring projects get the funding. In my home county of Franklin bordering Wake, the long promised (40 years) 4-laning of US401 finally got some funding in the 2000s, but once they switched to the needs-based scoring, it barely missed the threshold and was tabled. Needless to say everyone was upet. Only after their revenue exceeded projections in the late 2000s was the project active again. Thank goodness.

But I too am frustrated with the slow progress of all road projects in the state. How is it cheaper or better to take so long to complete these projects? Is the same construction company alternating working on several other projects simultaneously? We ain't got all day, I'm getting old, lol.

NC is one of the few states whose DOT manages all roads including county roads. The gas tax has historically been higher because of this, and counties would be taxing residents in other ways if they had to maintain their roads.

I like that NCDOT does it all, because there is consistency that's noticeable across the state.

The state has a highway trust fund that many states do not keep that makes money itself, though it has often been raided for other uses in times of budget shortfalls. I don't believe it is raided all the time, but during bad times it's a necessary evil.

I remember when US1 switched back and forth between 2 and 4 lanes North of Raleigh.  But in the early 90's the Triangle just had 900,000-1,000,000 people, only 700,000 in 1988 when I was at NC State. More than 2,000,000 live there now.

Believe me, NC is about the most prolific builder of new highways in the entire country except for Texas. NCDOT also maintains the 2nd largest network of over 80,000 miles of roads, Texas is number 1.

NCDOT also produces a lot with about $6 billion a year. Gas prices are higher in Atlanta so after paying more per gallon we get zero new roads over the last 25 years. Florida spends $13 billion a year on its roads and they are stellar.


NC spends about 2 million on maintenance of those 80,000 miles and uses $3 billion a year for new highways and improvements.
Where that same amount of revenue goes here in Georgia is beyond me so be grateful.

At the dawn of the automobile NC built good roads as it's way of keeping up with the Northeastern states, at one point having the most miles of paved roads in the country and earning the nickname "the Good Roads State".

Those roads are now aged and reaching the end of their service life much like in Pennsylavania.

NC puts out a report of the condition of the state's infrastructure every two years. The infrastructure is estimated to have a worth of $575 billion.

I've lived in GA, CA, NY, MA, and NJ  and I have more respect for NC's high standards now than ever. Very few other states hold themselves to the high standard that NC does for all state functions and agencies.

Georgia is utterly primitive in every aspect of the functions performed by the state. The DOT here erects signs on the side of the highway that last about 3 weeks before falling down.

While the I-85/I-40 duplex from Greensboro to Durham looks immaculate as it approaches 25 years of age. They do it right the first time and don't have to spend money on maintenance for a long time.

Even road enthusiasts on here that live in other states consider NCDOT among their favorites.

The gas tax in NC got a cap several years ago but that was to help it pass into law, and it mandated that from now on the tax would be pegged to rise with inflation so that its spending power wouldn't diminish too much.

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.



Totally agree with the span wire, especially when we get hurricanes and those lights start dropping, what a mess.

401 is finally getting 4 laned to Louisburg which is now a ridiculous need being that people moved out of Wake county to Franklin when they blued the county government and increased the tax load.  Yeah, they are trying again in Franklin and running into the local friction of "not a chance in hell" from the farmers and rural residents.  Have family near Bunn so definitely on that pulse.

We'll see come November if the projects change but, hoping for the best.
I have emailed the Raleigh City Council members and NCDOT begging for upgrades to the sagging clothes line signals. NCDOT doesnt prioritize them and it's not necessary to them.

I believe that Raleigh almost maintains the street clutter as a personality trait of the Capital City. It's a trademark of the city.

Well, you can't have everything, at least the freeways are beautiful lined with trees and no billboards. That's the first impression everyone flying into the Triangle are presented and it's awesome because the rest of America's cities are visually chaotic but I-40 is serene and the inclines and grading are superb between the airport and Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: STLmapboy on September 24, 2020, 12:06:08 PM
\
{shitload of stuff cut}

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.
To be fair the wires are pretty clean box spans with consistent signalization and lots of FYAs, but I agree. There are some good masts around Raleigh if you know where to look, though, like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9182196,-78.7862678,3a,75y,87.06h,84.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdaK4aNS7RxuK8oSxjmcQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 24, 2020, 12:25:41 PM
\
{shitload of stuff cut}

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.
To be fair the wires are pretty clean box spans with consistent signalization and lots of FYAs, but I agree. There are some good masts around Raleigh if you know where to look, though, like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9182196,-78.7862678,3a,75y,87.06h,84.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdaK4aNS7RxuK8oSxjmcQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).

Yeah, and with Cary's pristine signals next door, that should make Raleighites want better signals just from the comparison.

Everyone who would like to see more mast-arms should email NCDOT and Raleigh leaders and tell them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: STLmapboy on September 25, 2020, 09:13:57 PM
Here's a list (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28083163.ece/BINARY/Vanity%20license%20plates%20banned%20in%20North%20Carolina%20%28.pdf%29) of license plate customizations banned by the North Carolina DMV, taken from this article (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28040380.html/). Although just barely road related, you should take a gander; it's amusing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 26, 2020, 12:46:07 AM
Construction to Close Section of Lenoir County Highway (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-24-lenoir-county-cf-harvey-parkway-extension.aspx)
Quote
​KINSTON — A section of N.C. 148 in Lenoir County is scheduled to be closed next week as construction to extend C.F. Harvey Parkway continues.

N.C. 148 (C.F. Harvey Parkway) just east of Aerosystems Boulevard to the N.C. 58 intersection will be closed in both directions between 7 a.m. Sept. 28 and 7 a.m. Oct. 5. The closure will allow contractors to construct the new alignment tie-ins.

Drivers needing to access the other side of construction will use Airport Road, Academy Heights Road and N.C. 58. Motorists should anticipate needing more time for their commute and use caution when near the work zone.

Extending C.F. Harvey Parkway by almost six miles will improve access in northern Kinston between U.S. 70, N.C. 58 and N.C. 11. The $73.5 million project is expected to be substantially complete by the end of 2020.
The C.F. Harvey Pkwy extension to NC-11 will likely be opening in the next couple of months.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: DeaconG on September 26, 2020, 01:36:55 PM
Here's a list (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28083163.ece/BINARY/Vanity%20license%20plates%20banned%20in%20North%20Carolina%20%28.pdf%29/) of license plate customizations banned by the North Carolina DMV, taken from this article (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28040380.html/). Although just barely road related, you should take a gander; it's amusing.

I'm getting a 404 error on the link.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: STLmapboy on September 26, 2020, 09:54:43 PM
Here's a list (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28083163.ece/BINARY/Vanity%20license%20plates%20banned%20in%20North%20Carolina%20%28.pdf%29/) of license plate customizations banned by the North Carolina DMV, taken from this article (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28040380.html/). Although just barely road related, you should take a gander; it's amusing.

I'm getting a 404 error on the link.
Crap. Well, the link is in the article.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. Matté on September 28, 2020, 04:45:04 PM
Here's a list (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28083163.ece/BINARY/Vanity%20license%20plates%20banned%20in%20North%20Carolina%20%28.pdf%29) of license plate customizations banned by the North Carolina DMV, taken from this article (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28040380.html/). Although just barely road related, you should take a gander; it's amusing.

I'm getting a 404 error on the link.
Crap. Well, the link is in the article.

Extra slash in the PDF link, I took it out in the link above so it should work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2020, 07:31:16 PM
NCDOT closed both directions of the NC-24 bridge over Six Runs Creek between Turkey and Clinton due to a failing bridge beam. Work is expected to last 2 weeks.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-28-sampson-county-bridge-repairs.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-09-28-sampson-county-bridge-repairs.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 28, 2020, 09:15:18 PM
Here's a list (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28083163.ece/BINARY/Vanity%20license%20plates%20banned%20in%20North%20Carolina%20%28.pdf%29) of license plate customizations banned by the North Carolina DMV, taken from this article (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article28040380.html/). Although just barely road related, you should take a gander; it's amusing.

I'm getting a 404 error on the link.
Crap. Well, the link is in the article.

Extra slash in the PDF link, I took it out in the link above so it should work.

Be thankful that NC still stamps the digits and although boring, the standard plates aren't chock full of sloppy errors and low quality like Georgia's standard plates that look like nobody cares and 10 minutes of effort is all that went into them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 28, 2020, 09:43:01 PM
\
{shitload of stuff cut}

My only gripe with NC is their reluctance to upgrade span-wire traffic signals with nicer mast-arm poles like every other state has been doing.

Raleigh is the span-wire capital and it looks sloppy.
To be fair the wires are pretty clean box spans with consistent signalization and lots of FYAs, but I agree. There are some good masts around Raleigh if you know where to look, though, like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9182196,-78.7862678,3a,75y,87.06h,84.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEdaK4aNS7RxuK8oSxjmcQg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192/).
They are very elegant like this one throughout Cary, and RTP. Other municipalities almost certainly take credit for these throughout Western Wake.

Raleigh has installed some in the core area, but I still say there is a perhaps subliminal affection for streetside clutter which lots of signs, and dangling signals in Raleigh.

If you cite the timing of the lights, that means they succeeded in a decade long effort for synchronize intersections on major thoroughfares which is awesome, since Raleigh is one of the few cities without sensors that will skip phases for lanes without anyone waiting to turn. Southern California has always had eyes up on the signals that control them. Atlanta has a lot of the ones cut into the pavement that detect the metal in cars to control the light.

Raleigh has always been a 3-minute wait at 4am going through all the phases without any traffic. That timing that's appropriate for daytime traffic seemed painfully long in the middle of the night
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 06, 2020, 01:31:00 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-117 in Goldsboro between US-70 and US-70 Bypass. Completion is set for fall 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-03-23-us-117-widening-wayne-county.aspx)

As someone that used to live there, I certainly have no complaints.

Construction began yesterday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-06-wayne-county-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-06-wayne-county-widening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 09, 2020, 11:08:55 AM
Relocated NC 150/Macy Grove Road extension project in Forsyth County to open earlier than scheduled:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-08-macy-grove-extension-road-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-08-macy-grove-extension-road-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 09, 2020, 01:27:01 PM
A traffic shift is planned for Market Street in Wilmington, which is expected to last until mid-December. This is part of an improvement project that is set for completion in early 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-07-traffic-shift-market-street-wilmington.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-07-traffic-shift-market-street-wilmington.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2020, 06:13:44 PM
The Parker's Cable Ferry, one of three historic cable ferries in NC, is back in service after a two-year overhaul of the vessel. The ferry crosses the Meherrin River in Hertford County.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-20-parkers-ferry-returns.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 22, 2020, 06:19:14 PM
NCDOT has completed the four-laning of US 19E between Micaville and Spruce Pine in the Yancey and Mitchell County mountains north of Asheville.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-16-us-19e-yancey-mitchell-complete.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 23, 2020, 12:27:36 PM
The Parker's Cable Ferry, one of three historic cable ferries in NC, is back in service after a two-year overhaul of the vessel. The ferry crosses the Meherrin River in Hertford County.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-20-parkers-ferry-returns.aspx

Speaking of ferries, the federal Maritime Administration has designated the NC Ferry System as a Marine Highway Project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-22-marine-highway-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-22-marine-highway-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 23, 2020, 06:18:50 PM
The Parker's Cable Ferry, one of three historic cable ferries in NC, is back in service after a two-year overhaul of the vessel. The ferry crosses the Meherrin River in Hertford County.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-20-parkers-ferry-returns.aspx

Speaking of ferries, the federal Maritime Administration has designated the NC Ferry System as a Marine Highway Project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-22-marine-highway-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-22-marine-highway-project.aspx)
Here's a link for the program, which was entirely new to me. Turns out that the Marine Highways are numbered like nearby Interstate highways; for example, the water route from Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico via the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers is numbered M-55.
https://www.maritime.dot.gov/grants/marine-highways/marine-highway
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 27, 2020, 04:02:37 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract for milling & resurfacing, as well as shoulder work, on US-29 in Greensboro between I-40 and 16th Street. Work can start in April 2021 and is scheduled to be complete by June 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-27-us-29-paving-greensboro.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-10-27-us-29-paving-greensboro.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 30, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
RE: US 70 Freeway conversion in Durham: I wonder why Aviation Parkway will not be controlled access between Glebe Road and US 70? It appears from the conceptual plans that NCDOT plans to extend Aviation Parkway in the future. I assume this extension will not connect with I-85 as a portion of the Northern Durham Parkway anymore.
where that diverging diamond cuts off, I'm sure it will still be extended. It's included in the CTP.

Is the half-DDI now the selected alternative? I remember seeing another alternative that was a simple trumpet interchange.

Also, is the Aviation Parkway extension from I-540 to US 70 still being planned as a freeway? I saw an old study that indicated plans to complete the Aviation Parkway to US 70 as a freeway and then extend it as a surface road up around the east side of Durham to I-85. The "extension" included in the US 70 project is just a connector down to that other local road and doesn't connect to the existing freeway near I-540.

1st line - seems so. It says recommended.

2nd line - don't know. It's unfunded and there's no drawings that I can find.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 05, 2020, 06:22:14 PM
New ramps at the US 321/I-85 interchange in Gastonia are expected to open by mid November. These ramps (SB 85 to NB 321 and SB 321 to NB 85) are being added to an old-fashioned half cloverleaf.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-05-gaston-county-interchange.aspx
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-85-widening-gaston-county/Documents/us-321-interchange.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 06, 2020, 08:06:59 AM
Due to the I-440 project in Raleigh, the Melbourne Road bridge will close for a year, beginning next Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx)

The new bridge is now open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-05-melbourne-rd-bridge-i-440-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-05-melbourne-rd-bridge-i-440-open.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 06, 2020, 09:17:25 AM
^^ Looks like that new onramp onto NB 85 will serve BOTH directions of 321, not just southbound.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 06, 2020, 12:50:21 PM
It's too bad the US 321 freeway stops at Grier Beam Blvd., and doesn't connect with Interstate 85. A full Interstate 85-to-Interstate 40 freeway would have been nice.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2020, 05:53:30 PM
It's too bad the US 321 freeway stops at Grier Beam Blvd., and doesn't connect with Interstate 85. A full Interstate 85-to-Interstate 40 freeway would have been nice.
Has there ever been consideration of a beltway around the northeast side of Gastonia to provide a freeway connection between I-85 and US 321?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2020, 06:01:56 PM
It's too bad the US 321 freeway stops at Grier Beam Blvd., and doesn't connect with Interstate 85. A full Interstate 85-to-Interstate 40 freeway would have been nice.
Has there ever been consideration of a beltway around the northeast side of Gastonia to provide a freeway connection between I-85 and US 321?
I found a Gaston County Comprehensive Transportation Plan that appears to show a beltway arc on the northwest side of Gastonia. Does anyone know anything about this?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 08, 2020, 08:25:52 PM
It's too bad the US 321 freeway stops at Grier Beam Blvd., and doesn't connect with Interstate 85. A full Interstate 85-to-Interstate 40 freeway would have been nice.
Has there ever been consideration of a beltway around the northeast side of Gastonia to provide a freeway connection between I-85 and US 321?
I found a Gaston County Comprehensive Transportation Plan that appears to show a beltway arc on the northwest side of Gastonia. Does anyone know anything about this?

It is still in the 2019 revision of their plan - https://gclmpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-AMENDED-GCLMPO-CTP-Highway-Map-and-Insets.pdf

It is not in the 2020-29 NC STIP.

The Gastonia 2025 plan only has the SW and S segments of that road (Garden Pkwy) - http://www.cityofgastonia.com/images/files/planning/documents/2025/12-Transportation_layout.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 09, 2020, 09:05:30 AM
Due to the I-440 project in Raleigh, the Melbourne Road bridge will close for a year, beginning next Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2019/2019-09-23-i-440-melbourne-rd-closures.aspx)

The new bridge is now open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-05-melbourne-rd-bridge-i-440-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-05-melbourne-rd-bridge-i-440-open.aspx)

PLEASE COMPLAIN TO NCDOT ABOUT THE BELTLINE TRASH, FADED SIGNAGE, AND 6 FOOT TALL WEEDS AT ALL RAMPS. I thought about what newcomers must think after all the national accolades to arrive and see this litter-filled, run-down looking freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 09, 2020, 09:14:42 AM
If you're referring to Exits 1-4, that's an active construction zone, not terribly surprising. It will all be cleaned up once it's complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on November 09, 2020, 11:49:43 AM
Except its been like that for quite awhile. As stated earlier in the thread, exit signs have been missing in the area for YEARS, well before the current construction plans were even drafted. I remember the first time driving the beltline and US-64 in 2007 and noting a ton of abandoned cars along the side of the road....they were still there a week later when I left. Yes, they were tagged by the DOT/police, so they knew about them. They have since solved that problem.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on November 10, 2020, 09:44:37 PM
It's too bad the US 321 freeway stops at Grier Beam Blvd., and doesn't connect with Interstate 85. A full Interstate 85-to-Interstate 40 freeway would have been nice.
Has there ever been consideration of a beltway around the northeast side of Gastonia to provide a freeway connection between I-85 and US 321?

There was a proposal in the '90's for and outer-outer loop hwy that would have gone from Chester>Shelby>Lincolnton>Salisbury>Albemarle>Monroe>back around to Chester or between York and Chester. It was a beast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on November 11, 2020, 01:08:28 AM
I was driving on 40 through the Yadkin River Bridge/widening construction zone..and noticed that they installed high mast lighting at the Bermuda Run and Harper Road interchanges (mm 180 and 182).  They also have installed lighting in the median in that area as well.   Makes me wonder why they didn't put lights up along 40 through Winston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 11, 2020, 10:35:07 AM
I have been running up and down Fancy Gap mountain for the past week since my wife is in Wake Forest Baptist (thankfully not Covid, but that was the closest bed for treatment). I'm convinced that Winston-Salem and the surrounding area is the redheaded stepchild of the NC highway department. U.S. 52 from I-74 to U.S. 421 (and what Garmin thinks is still I-40 with old exit numbers) has got to have the worst pavement in the state. I have just about jarred my teeth loose rattling across all those bad joints (and trying the left lane is no better). I'll bet there are sections of I-77 that have been rebuilt several times in the past years while it appears nothing has been done to 52. Is the plan to finish the beltway sometime in the next 10 years and divert traffic there?

I have tried alternatives just for variety: I-77 to U.S. 421 east which wasn't bad, although a bit longer. I took that way back as far as Yadkinville, then up U.S. 601 to I-74 just to do it. Sunday was a nice fall day, so I accepted the longer time and took VA 8/NC 8 from Christiansburg to Winston-Salem.

It is pretty close to a 2-hour trip (or a bit more depending on day and traffic). I have learned (or reinforced) several things: some truckers are aholes who see no problem with cutting off an approaching car to micro-pass another truck, with one going 62 MPH and the passing truck doing 63 MPH while cars need to drop from 70+ on the uphill. There are several sections of I-77 that could use a third climbing lane to help with this problem. Wednesday is a bad day on I-81 and I-77 with trucks outnumbering cars (already knew this from other trips) but Saturday afternoons present a pretty wide-open road.

Bruce in Blacksburg


 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 12, 2020, 04:17:07 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-12-i-40-aviation-pkwy-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-12-i-40-aviation-pkwy-shift.aspx)

Quote
MORRISVILLE — N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews have reached a significant milestone on the project to improve the Interstate 40 interchange at Aviation Parkway.

On Saturday, traffic is scheduled to shift onto the eastern half of the new Aviation Parkway bridge over I-40. The western half opened in April.

Work is scheduled to begin at 6 a.m. and wrap up by evening.

At different times and for up to 30 minutes, the exits at the interchange will be closed to allow crews to restripe the ramp connections to Aviation Parkway to allow for traffic to be shifted.

During the closures, message boards will direct drivers to use the Airport Boulevard exits.

​This shift will allow crews to complete construction of the median north and south of the bridge in the final phase of construction for this project. The project is estimated to finish in Spring 2021.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 13, 2020, 06:25:07 PM
I have been running up and down Fancy Gap mountain for the past week since my wife is in Wake Forest Baptist (thankfully not Covid, but that was the closest bed for treatment). I'm convinced that Winston-Salem and the surrounding area is the redheaded stepchild of the NC highway department. U.S. 52 from I-74 to U.S. 421 (and what Garmin thinks is still I-40 with old exit numbers) has got to have the worst pavement in the state. I have just about jarred my teeth loose rattling across all those bad joints (and trying the left lane is no better). I'll bet there are sections of I-77 that have been rebuilt several times in the past years while it appears nothing has been done to 52. Is the plan to finish the beltway sometime in the next 10 years and divert traffic there?

I have tried alternatives just for variety: I-77 to U.S. 421 east which wasn't bad, although a bit longer. I took that way back as far as Yadkinville, then up U.S. 601 to I-74 just to do it. Sunday was a nice fall day, so I accepted the longer time and took VA 8/NC 8 from Christiansburg to Winston-Salem.

It is pretty close to a 2-hour trip (or a bit more depending on day and traffic). I have learned (or reinforced) several things: some truckers are aholes who see no problem with cutting off an approaching car to micro-pass another truck, with one going 62 MPH and the passing truck doing 63 MPH while cars need to drop from 70+ on the uphill. There are several sections of I-77 that could use a third climbing lane to help with this problem. Wednesday is a bad day on I-81 and I-77 with trucks outnumbering cars (already knew this from other trips) but Saturday afternoons present a pretty wide-open road.

Bruce in Blacksburg


 

Well, I guess that's a downside to that area having all of its interstates replaced with newer bypasses a few mile away. Greensboro and Winston-Salem have the most miles of freeways and interstates in the whole state, just look at a map.

Bypasses and replacements of I-40, I-85, and new interstates like I-73,I-74, piece meal construction of loops around Greensboro and Winston might be more than be maintained, but in the short term, clearly the construction projects going on are the priority.

Please complain about the pavement to NCDOT
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 14, 2020, 09:55:57 PM
I have been running up and down Fancy Gap mountain for the past week since my wife is in Wake Forest Baptist (thankfully not Covid, but that was the closest bed for treatment). I'm convinced that Winston-Salem and the surrounding area is the redheaded stepchild of the NC highway department. U.S. 52 from I-74 to U.S. 421 (and what Garmin thinks is still I-40 with old exit numbers) has got to have the worst pavement in the state. I have just about jarred my teeth loose rattling across all those bad joints (and trying the left lane is no better). I'll bet there are sections of I-77 that have been rebuilt several times in the past years while it appears nothing has been done to 52. Is the plan to finish the beltway sometime in the next 10 years and divert traffic there?

Bruce in Blacksburg

You probably noticed a few sections of US-52 that have already been reconstructed to Interstate standards: specifically, the King interchange and the bridge across the Little Yadkin River just north of there.  I believe that NCDOT has a general practice of making upgrades [to freeways used mainly for out of state travel] only when conditions warrant the improvements.  This has been certainly true for the I-95 corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 16, 2020, 09:44:22 AM

You probably noticed a few sections of US-52 that have already been reconstructed to Interstate standards: specifically, the King interchange and the bridge across the Little Yadkin River just north of there.  I believe that NCDOT has a general practice of making upgrades [to freeways used mainly for out of state travel] only when conditions warrant the improvements.  This has been certainly true for the I-95 corridor.

Yeah, it's a bit of a schizophrenic highway with those sections plopped in the middle of substandard road and pavement.

I'm trying to figure out the construction around the Rural Hall exit. I assume that is where the bypass/beltway will connect/cross, but the construction and bridges on the west side of U.S. 52 are throwing me off. I can't figure out the configuration or route, especially based on the angle of the bridge pier and pilings just south of the exit.

Bruce in Blacksburg
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 16, 2020, 10:01:43 AM

You probably noticed a few sections of US-52 that have already been reconstructed to Interstate standards: specifically, the King interchange and the bridge across the Little Yadkin River just north of there.  I believe that NCDOT has a general practice of making upgrades [to freeways used mainly for out of state travel] only when conditions warrant the improvements.  This has been certainly true for the I-95 corridor.

Yeah, it's a bit of a schizophrenic highway with those sections plopped in the middle of substandard road and pavement.

I'm trying to figure out the construction around the Rural Hall exit. I assume that is where the bypass/beltway will connect/cross, but the construction and bridges on the west side of U.S. 52 are throwing me off. I can't figure out the configuration or route, especially based on the angle of the bridge pier and pilings just south of the exit.

Bruce in Blacksburg
 

You are correct that this construction is the tie-in for the I-74 Bypass and eventually the I-274 Western Beltway.  It is common for NCDOT to design interchanges for the "straightline" route and connect offramps for the "exits".  My last time through was in March, but I'm pretty sure that the construction was leaning that way.  Thus, you should be seeing the new routing for I-74 going "down the middle" and veering off toward the southeast, with multi-lane exit ramps being built for the existing US-52 towards downtown Winston.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 16, 2020, 11:18:46 AM

You probably noticed a few sections of US-52 that have already been reconstructed to Interstate standards: specifically, the King interchange and the bridge across the Little Yadkin River just north of there.  I believe that NCDOT has a general practice of making upgrades [to freeways used mainly for out of state travel] only when conditions warrant the improvements.  This has been certainly true for the I-95 corridor.

Yeah, it's a bit of a schizophrenic highway with those sections plopped in the middle of substandard road and pavement.

I'm trying to figure out the construction around the Rural Hall exit. I assume that is where the bypass/beltway will connect/cross, but the construction and bridges on the west side of U.S. 52 are throwing me off. I can't figure out the configuration or route, especially based on the angle of the bridge pier and pilings just south of the exit.

Bruce in Blacksburg
 

You are correct that this construction is the tie-in for the I-74 Bypass and eventually the I-274 Western Beltway.  It is common for NCDOT to design interchanges for the "straightline" route and connect offramps for the "exits".  My last time through was in March, but I'm pretty sure that the construction was leaning that way.  Thus, you should be seeing the new routing for I-74 going "down the middle" and veering off toward the southeast, with multi-lane exit ramps being built for the existing US-52 towards downtown Winston.

Yep, and the full proposed layout can be seen on OpenstreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2030/-80.2957). No idea how far along the construction is, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 17, 2020, 09:22:25 AM

You are correct that this construction is the tie-in for the I-74 Bypass and eventually the I-274 Western Beltway.  It is common for NCDOT to design interchanges for the "straightline" route and connect offramps for the "exits".  My last time through was in March, but I'm pretty sure that the construction was leaning that way.  Thus, you should be seeing the new routing for I-74 going "down the middle" and veering off toward the southeast, with multi-lane exit ramps being built for the existing US-52 towards downtown Winston.

Yep, and the full proposed layout can be seen on OpenstreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2030/-80.2957). No idea how far along the construction is, though.

Thanks, that helps. It looks like the grading for the road is in progress to the west of the current U.S. 52, with the bridges across the railroad track well underway (piers built for two bridges and one span section in place). There is one bridge pier and steel work next to it on the west side of the highway just south of NC 65 that looks like it is what will carry the new road over the new on-ramp from NC 65 to the south -- but it's hard to tell from the angle of the pier at this point.

I'll see what I can snag off my dash cam that might be useable and post it somewhere.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on November 17, 2020, 12:20:17 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I-285 will be extended north to this point along US 52 when the I-74 portion of the bypass is completed.  Will this require any upgrading of US 52 north of I-40 or is that segment considered adequate or, alternately, has been granted any sort of waiver for such? 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on November 17, 2020, 03:59:44 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
IIRC, I-285 will be extended north to this point along US 52 when the I-74 portion of the bypass is completed.  Will this require any upgrading of US 52 north of I-40 or is that segment considered adequate or, alternately, has been granted any sort of waiver for such?

It needs upgrades. IIRC they have a total reconstruction/widening lined up, but it's not funded so it'll be a while.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 17, 2020, 04:45:34 PM
Not a valid %s URL

You are correct that this construction is the tie-in for the I-74 Bypass and eventually the I-274 Western Beltway.  It is common for NCDOT to design interchanges for the "straightline" route and connect offramps for the "exits".  My last time through was in March, but I'm pretty sure that the construction was leaning that way.  Thus, you should be seeing the new routing for I-74 going "down the middle" and veering off toward the southeast, with multi-lane exit ramps being built for the existing US-52 towards downtown Winston.

Yep, and the full proposed layout can be seen on OpenstreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2030/-80.2957). No idea how far along the construction is, though.

Thanks, that helps. It looks like the grading for the road is in progress to the west of the current U.S. 52, with the bridges across the railroad track well underway (piers built for two bridges and one span section in place). There is one bridge pier and steel work next to it on the west side of the highway just south of NC 65 that looks like it is what will carry the new road over the new on-ramp from NC 65 to the south -- but it's hard to tell from the angle of the pier at this point.

I'll see what I can snag off my dash cam that might be useable and post it somewhere.

Bruce in Blacksburg

Here are two screen grabs from a recent trip -- one is the work at NC65 and the other is the bridge work over the railroad track.

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/US52-1.png)

(https://brucebharper.info/varoads/US52-2.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 23, 2020, 11:44:10 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-concord-diverging-diamond.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-20-concord-diverging-diamond.aspx)

Quote
CONCORD — N.C. Department of Transportation contract crews will be shifting traffic to a diverging diamond interchange where U.S. 29/601 meets Interstate 85 just after midnight Tuesday, weather permitting. The switch is part of the I-85 widening project from north of Exit 55 (N.C. 73) to north of Moose Road in Rowan County.

The diverging diamond interchange is a design that allows two directions of traffic to temporarily cross to the left side of the road, providing easier access to I-85. Similar interchanges have been in operation for several years along I-85 at Poplar Tent Road and N.C. 73.

To safely complete the traffic shift, U.S. 29/601 will be closed on both sides of the highway from midnight to 6 a.m. Wednesday. All ramps will remain open.

Southbound traffic will be detoured onto I-85 South to Exit 55 where drivers can exit, go over the bridge and access I-85 North back to Exit 58. Northbound traffic will be detoured onto I-85 North to Exit 60B (Dale Earnhardt Boulevard).Drivers will then go over the bridge to I-85 South, to return to Exit 58.

Motorists are encouraged to pay attention when approaching the work zone, follow posted detours and allow extra time to reach their destinations safely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 24, 2020, 04:31:30 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual informational meeting on December 3 to give an update on the ongoing NC-12 "jug handle" bridge project in Rodanthe. Completion is currently expected in late 2021.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-24-december-rodanthe-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-24-december-rodanthe-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 26, 2020, 02:57:10 PM
Speed limits to increase on 2 Jacksonville roads (https://wcti12.com/news/local/speed-limits-increase-on-2-jacksonville-roads)
Quote
JACKSONVILLE, Onslow County – The speed limits on two busy Onslow County roads are about to increase, but officials say safety will not be impacted.

Next year, officials say the speed limit on Jacksonville Bypass will go up from 55 mph to 60, and the Jacksonville Parkway will increase from 45 to 50.

According to officials, the North Carolina Department of Transportation recently evaluated the speeds in the area and learned an increase would not jeopardize safety.

"The crash history on both of those roadways is extremely low, and it is very low in comparison to similar roadways throughout the state, so that's one of the things that made us feel a little more comfortable about increasing the speed limits," said Jacksonville Transportation Services Director Anthony Prinz. "There were not fatalities out there, and the number of injury crashes was very low as well."

City leaders say this decision comes after years of discussing the areas' speed limits, and the Jacksonville City Council made the decision Tuesday to put the new limits in place.
Just saw this article from last month today, though the changes do not go into effect until 2021.

The speed limit on the Jacksonville Bypass (US-17 / NC-24) will be increased from 55 mph to 60 mph, and the speed limit on the Jacksonville Parkway will be increased from 45 mph to 50 mph.

This bypass increase in particular is a welcome change, and one I suggested to NCDOT earlier in the year along with the many segments of the US-17 corridor throughout the state. Hopefully in the near future, the speed limit will also be increased to 60 mph along US-17 both north and south of Jacksonville. Back in 2019, NCDOT similarly increased the speed limit on the New Bern Bypass (US-17 / US-70), along with many non-limited-access sections of US-70 between Dover and Raleigh, from 55 mph to 60 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 26, 2020, 06:15:05 PM
The speed limit on the Jacksonville Bypass (US-17 / NC-24) will be increased from 55 mph to 60 mph, and the speed limit on the Jacksonville Parkway will be increased from 45 mph to 50 mph.

It's odd that these stretches of US-17 have different names, since it is a single bypass.  However, I almost always only take the Jacksonville Bypass while using NC-24 on both sides of the bypass.  Maybe it's that NC-24 is a more important route than US-17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on November 26, 2020, 08:06:51 PM
The Jacksonville Parkway is a separate arterial roadway from the Jacksonville Bypass, which is a freeway loop around the city.

Both routes have importance, particularly US-17 for north-south traffic, and NC-24 for east-west traffic heading beachbound towards Morehead City.

On the freeway loop portion itself, NC-24 and US-17 have independent segments on the west and northern sides, with an overlap between the routes in the middle portion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 26, 2020, 11:46:16 PM
The Jacksonville Parkway is a separate arterial roadway from the Jacksonville Bypass, which is a freeway loop around the city.

Both routes have importance, particularly US-17 for north-south traffic, and NC-24 for east-west traffic heading beachbound towards Morehead City.

On the freeway loop portion itself, NC-24 and US-17 have independent segments on the west and northern sides, with an overlap between the routes in the middle portion.

To clarify, the Jacksonville Parkway is the freeway section of US-17 from NC-24 up to Marine Boulevard (where US-17 exits headed north).  The Parkway continues as a minor four lane road up to Western Boulevard (NC-53), which is the north-south arterial parallel to this section of the Parkway.  Most of the traffic beyond US-17 is headed toward the mall and other shopping centers along Western Boulevard (even traffic on the minor section).  Does the new speed limit on the Parkway apply to the US-17 segment, the minor segment or both?

I didn't know much about this part of Jacksonville.  But about 5 years ago, the GPS started recommending taking Gum Branch Road through Half Moon.  One time, I decided to try and it worked OK, but I still prefer the Jacksonville Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 27, 2020, 01:47:11 AM
If you're referring to Exits 1-4, that's an active construction zone, not terribly surprising. It will all be cleaned up once it's complete.

That construction zone looks half abandoned and underfunded. But that one area is no excuse for the entire Beltline to be an overgrown mess, as is the case at all of the I-540 exit ramps too.

Other cities don't have ubiquitous 6 foot tall weeds on every ramp and growing up through the guardrail. Kill the weeds.

Raleigh usually has among the most beautiful freeways (I-40 East from the airport) and at the same time has some of the sloppiest, visually cluttered arterials with sagging traffic signals etc. The dichotomy is unfortunate.

My idea is to let residents and businesses donate money for nearby intersection aesthetic upgrades, since NCDOT places Mast-arm signals at the lowest level of priority.

Every other state and Charlotte are replacing span-wire signals with metal poles at a rapid pace, and I'm scared that Raleigh won't ever tidy-up intersections to look better like Cary has so close by.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 27, 2020, 09:21:35 PM
After the authorization of a 431-mile extension of Interstate 77 from Canton, Ohio to Charlotte, North Carolina in 1957, Virginia and North Carolina had to decide between different possible routings of the new highway. 

The biggest question was where the Interstate was to cross the Blue Ridge Mountains.  Virginia looked for a western routing over Low Gap in North Carolina; North Carolina wanted an eastern routing over Fancy Gap.  It took five years for both states to agree on where I-77 was to cross the state line.

I've completed a history on the different proposals (including an early proposed routing of I-77 from the WV TPK via US 460 and VA 100 and attempts to move I-77 further east and even to Wilmington by NC boosters) at the blog.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/closing-gap-how-interstate-77-in-north.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on December 01, 2020, 09:34:04 AM
After the authorization of a 431-mile extension of Interstate 77 from Canton, Ohio to Charlotte, North Carolina in 1957, Virginia and North Carolina had to decide between different possible routings of the new highway. 

The biggest question was where the Interstate was to cross the Blue Ridge Mountains.  Virginia looked for a western routing over Low Gap in North Carolina; North Carolina wanted an eastern routing over Fancy Gap.  It took five years for both states to agree on where I-77 was to cross the state line.

I've completed a history on the different proposals (including an early proposed routing of I-77 from the WV TPK via US 460 and VA 100 and attempts to move I-77 further east and even to Wilmington by NC boosters) at the blog.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/11/closing-gap-how-interstate-77-in-north.html

And buried somewhere in the NC legislation is a small phrase that says "I-77 must be perpetually under construction at all times someone along its length in the state."

Some old ideas never die -- the eastern route for I-77 from Princeton via U.S. 460 surfaced as a route for I-73 from Princeton to I-81, although it was an all-U.S. 460 routing instead of jogging over to VA 100 (the better to hit closer to Roanoke, then the turn south).

I-77 between Fort Chiswell and Fancy Gap is becoming more like I-81 with the need for a third lane in places. There are several grades where trucks micro-passing each other can block traffic for quite a distance. As we saw on Sunday (always a heavy travel day on I-77 post-Thanksgiving) one minor accident blocking one lane can back up traffic for miles. Going southbound in the morning for a quick errand to Winston-Salem, a wreck on the northbound side had a long backup behind it. Coming back that evening, a wreck on the southbound side just before dropping down to the New River Bridge had traffic backed up to I-81.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 01, 2020, 11:50:00 AM
Some old ideas never die -- the eastern route for I-77 from Princeton via U.S. 460 surfaced as a route for I-73 from Princeton to I-81, although it was an all-U.S. 460 routing instead of jogging over to VA 100 (the better to hit closer to Roanoke, then the turn south).

Bruce in Blacksburg

Sending the reply to this over to the I-73 Virginia thread in the Mid-Atlantic forum.  Sorry for me sending us down a rabbit hole.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 02, 2020, 05:28:23 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.

The new ramps for the I-85/US 321 interchange were supposed to open by Nov. 16 and Nov. 30, but I haven't seen anything indicating either have opened.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 02, 2020, 05:52:09 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.

The bridges over US-220 (still too hard to call it I-73/I-74) were nearing completion when I went to Seagrove back in October.  Whereas many new overpasses in North Carolina are getting dogwood flowers stamped on the outfacing end caps of center piers, the ones for the Asheboro Bypass (future By-Pass US-64) had elephants.  For those who have never been, the North Carolina Zoo is well worth the trip (and not far from Seagrove, if you like old-timey pottery and face-jugs).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 02, 2020, 10:59:13 PM
NCDOT got the NC 49 SB control city right. I was surprised to see Charlotte shown as the control city there. It would have been nice to see Raleigh as the control city for US 64 EB, but the US 421 junction in Siler City holds more weight I suppose with NCDOT. This may change as they State continues to solidly US-64/NC49 as a viable alternate route between Raleigh and Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 03, 2020, 08:06:01 AM
Whereas many new overpasses in North Carolina are getting dogwood flowers stamped on the outfacing end caps of center piers, the ones for the Asheboro Bypass (future By-Pass US-64) had elephants.

Said elephants:

NCDOT got the NC 49 SB control city right. I was surprised to see Charlotte shown as the control city there. It would have been nice to see Raleigh as the control city for US 64 EB, but the US 421 junction in Siler City holds more weight I suppose with NCDOT. This may change as they State continues to solidly US-64/NC49 as a viable alternate route between Raleigh and Charlotte.

With these gigantic overhead signs, you wonder why they can't put two cities on there. Is that a newer thing? There are plenty of signs across the state with two cities listed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 03, 2020, 10:54:50 AM
Those end cap stamps look great!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 03, 2020, 04:09:19 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.
Per NCDOT, as of today, opening is currently slated for mid-December.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1334533710478270467
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 04, 2020, 04:11:39 PM
The Asheboro Bypass should be open by NOW.  I do not understand what the hold up is, maybe NCDOT is waiting for Governor Cooper to clear his calendar so they can have a ribbon cutting ceremony.  Tom Allen on Youtube has posted videos of NCDOT posting signs along the route and this was BEFORE Thanksgiving!!!!  The road has been paved and ready to go for about a month now!!!!

It's very odd that the opening date for the next leg of the Greensboro loop was announced before the Asheboro bypass!!!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 04, 2020, 05:33:49 PM
It will be interesting to see what traffic volumes look like on the Asheboro Bypass. Traffic volumes are pretty low on 49 and 64 west of Asheboro. I never got the impression that much of the traffic in Asheboro was through-traffic and was more local traffic. I’m guessing maybe 10K AADT in the beginning (ignoring COVID). Maybe this is a case of build it and they will come. Then the westbound through-traffic will be dumping onto two lane highways that aren’t being widened any time soon. Only two short projects are in the STIP for widening 49 and 64, and they’re not funded before 2028, if then. The widening projects for these two sections have not fared well in the prioritization process over the past few years, and any future projects are unlikely given the current financial picture for NCDOT.

It will be convenient to not have the traffic lights and congestion, but it will unfortunately not offer much in time savings due to its circuitous routing. Using Google traffic estimates, the trip time westbound to 49 will be about the same as driving straight through during non-peak hours (roughly 9.5-10 minutes).

It will be nice when it’s open. I’m sure the people there will appreciate it. I will be glad to use it as an alternative to the 40/85 grind. It's just amazing how many hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to build a project of this scale, and it doesn't even save you any time and benefits relatively few.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 04, 2020, 09:30:47 PM
As you all know, the US 64 Asheboro Bypass includes an extension of the Zoo Parkway that presently connects NC 159 with the North Carolina Zoo. That should make accessing the zoo much easier.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 04, 2020, 10:07:58 PM
As you all know, the US 64 Asheboro Bypass includes an extension of the Zoo Parkway that presently connects NC 159 with the North Carolina Zoo. That should make accessing the zoo much easier.

And that should clean things up on Dixie Drive (current US-64/NC-49) through the main drag of Asheboro.  Traffic using US-64 and NC-49 should benefit by using the new bypass, but I wonder if US-64 traffic should just stay on the current route through town.  This has always been a zig-zag town.  Folks in West Virginia have long known that US-52 to US-64 to US-220 to US-74 was the best route to Myrtle Beach (so the new I-74 is a natural course).  After I-74 opened from Winston, I suspect that much of the Asheboro traffic is some form of Raleigh-to-Charlotte or Zoo traffic proper.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2020, 04:44:02 PM
As you all know, the US 64 Asheboro Bypass includes an extension of the Zoo Parkway that presently connects NC 159 with the North Carolina Zoo. That should make accessing the zoo much easier.

Yes, as a family that would visit the zoo nearly every month prior to COVID, this will be very helpful.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 09, 2020, 04:11:33 PM
As part of the I-40 widening project between southeast Raleigh and Clayton, the flyover bridge from I-440 East to I-40 East (Exit 16) will be closed this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-09-shift-new-flyover-i-440-east-i-40-east.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-09-shift-new-flyover-i-440-east-i-40-east.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 12, 2020, 05:21:34 PM
It will be interesting to see what traffic volumes look like on the Asheboro Bypass. Traffic volumes are pretty low on 49 and 64 west of Asheboro. I never got the impression that much of the traffic in Asheboro was through-traffic and was more local traffic. I’m guessing maybe 10K AADT in the beginning (ignoring COVID). Maybe this is a case of build it and they will come. Then the westbound through-traffic will be dumping onto two lane highways that aren’t being widened any time soon. Only two short projects are in the STIP for widening 49 and 64, and they’re not funded before 2028, if then. The widening projects for these two sections have not fared well in the prioritization process over the past few years, and any future projects are unlikely given the current financial picture for NCDOT.

It will be convenient to not have the traffic lights and congestion, but it will unfortunately not offer much in time savings due to its circuitous routing. Using Google traffic estimates, the trip time westbound to 49 will be about the same as driving straight through during non-peak hours (roughly 9.5-10 minutes).

It will be nice when it’s open. I’m sure the people there will appreciate it. I will be glad to use it as an alternative to the 40/85 grind. It's just amazing how many hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to build a project of this scale, and it doesn't even save you any time and benefits relatively few.

I think that the 49/64 corridor is considered to be a crucial alternative route for East-West intrastate movement of freight and people. Before the Great Recession they were talking about upgrading to interstate standards as an official freight corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh and an important link in the overall building for the next 50 years effortt.

So it's not overbuild for low traffic voulmes. It's i-85's parallel alternate, a future super valuable piece of infrastructure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 13, 2020, 12:12:27 PM
In terms of alternate ways from Charlotte to Raleigh, NC 24/27 to I-73/74 to US 64 is going to be the best alternate in a few years.  There is a project fully funded by Connect NC Bonds that will widen NC 24/27 from west of the Troy bypass to the Pee Dee River.  This project is slated to begin construction in 2023.  Another project to widen NC 24/27 from Albemarle to the Pee Dee River is expected to be completed sometime in 2021.

For the NC 49 corridor from Charlotte to Asheboro, there is only one widening project that is dated post-2029 for construction to begin, this project only goes for a few miles west of the Asheboro bypass.  There are no other projects in the current NC STIP to widen any more of NC 49.  There is a 2 lane portion from Mt. Pleasant to Complex that is 25 miles long, although there is a short 4 lane section and bridge over the Tuckertown Reservoir.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on December 13, 2020, 12:44:19 PM
It will be interesting to see what traffic volumes look like on the Asheboro Bypass. Traffic volumes are pretty low on 49 and 64 west of Asheboro. I never got the impression that much of the traffic in Asheboro was through-traffic and was more local traffic. I’m guessing maybe 10K AADT in the beginning (ignoring COVID). Maybe this is a case of build it and they will come. Then the westbound through-traffic will be dumping onto two lane highways that aren’t being widened any time soon. Only two short projects are in the STIP for widening 49 and 64, and they’re not funded before 2028, if then. The widening projects for these two sections have not fared well in the prioritization process over the past few years, and any future projects are unlikely given the current financial picture for NCDOT.

It will be convenient to not have the traffic lights and congestion, but it will unfortunately not offer much in time savings due to its circuitous routing. Using Google traffic estimates, the trip time westbound to 49 will be about the same as driving straight through during non-peak hours (roughly 9.5-10 minutes).

It will be nice when it’s open. I’m sure the people there will appreciate it. I will be glad to use it as an alternative to the 40/85 grind. It's just amazing how many hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to build a project of this scale, and it doesn't even save you any time and benefits relatively few.

I think that the 49/64 corridor is considered to be a crucial alternative route for East-West intrastate movement of freight and people. Before the Great Recession they were talking about upgrading to interstate standards as an official freight corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh and an important link in the overall building for the next 50 years effortt.

A planned extension of the I-36 designation proposed for what is now I-42?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 13, 2020, 06:31:58 PM
It will be interesting to see what traffic volumes look like on the Asheboro Bypass. Traffic volumes are pretty low on 49 and 64 west of Asheboro. I never got the impression that much of the traffic in Asheboro was through-traffic and was more local traffic. I’m guessing maybe 10K AADT in the beginning (ignoring COVID). Maybe this is a case of build it and they will come. Then the westbound through-traffic will be dumping onto two lane highways that aren’t being widened any time soon. Only two short projects are in the STIP for widening 49 and 64, and they’re not funded before 2028, if then. The widening projects for these two sections have not fared well in the prioritization process over the past few years, and any future projects are unlikely given the current financial picture for NCDOT.

It will be convenient to not have the traffic lights and congestion, but it will unfortunately not offer much in time savings due to its circuitous routing. Using Google traffic estimates, the trip time westbound to 49 will be about the same as driving straight through during non-peak hours (roughly 9.5-10 minutes).

It will be nice when it’s open. I’m sure the people there will appreciate it. I will be glad to use it as an alternative to the 40/85 grind. It's just amazing how many hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to build a project of this scale, and it doesn't even save you any time and benefits relatively few.

I think that the 49/64 corridor is considered to be a crucial alternative route for East-West intrastate movement of freight and people. Before the Great Recession they were talking about upgrading to interstate standards as an official freight corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh and an important link in the overall building for the next 50 years effortt.

A planned extension of the I-36 designation proposed for what is now I-42?
Not likely. NCDOT's plan for US 64 between NC 540 and US 1 in Cary calls for some substantial upgrades, but not to interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 14, 2020, 04:18:11 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is opening Friday, 12/18/2020.

US 64 Bypass expected to ease Dixie Drive traffic starting Friday (https://www.courier-tribune.com/story/news/2020/12/14/us-64-bypass-open-public-friday/3895616001/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 14, 2020, 06:30:45 PM
When the US 64 Asheboro Bypass opens, can someone drive along it and get pictures of the new bypass? I don't want to have to wait for Google Maps and its Street View to be updated to see what this new roadway looks like.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 14, 2020, 06:41:55 PM
The speed limit will be increased from 45 mph to 55 mph along the US-421 Salem Pkwy through Downtown Winston-Salem.

55 mph speed limit to take effect on Salem Parkway in downtown Winston-Salem (https://journalnow.com/news/local/55-mph-speed-limit-to-take-effect-on-salem-parkway-in-downtown-winston-salem/article_b4e6ecac-3e36-11eb-8a18-672262931cdb.html)
Quote
Workers will start putting up signs on Tuesday to give Salem Parkway in downtown Winston-Salem a new 55 mph speed limit.

State highway officials said the work will likely start about 9 a.m. Tuesday, or even a little earlier, depending on how the Tuesday morning rush hour develops.

Larry Shaver, a resident engineer for the N.C. Department of Transportation, said some folks won't notice the change because they're already driving faster.

"I think they're already there. We are just going to make it official," Shaver said.

A higher speed limit on the currently 45-mph stretch was one of the pluses that highway officials dangled as a possibility when the massive downtown freeway do-over was underway.

Business 40 shut down on Nov. 17, 2018 and underwent months of demolition and reconstruction before emerging as Salem Parkway on Feb. 2.

The new road has longer lanes for getting on and off the highway, higher bridge clearances and other enhancements, including two pedestrian crossings.

Highway workers have to replace nine traffic signs to put the new speed limit into effect.

The $100-million renovation was a joint project of Flatiron Constructors Inc., Blythe Development Co. and HDR Engineering.

Shaver said that while the project is largely finished, additional work awarded to the contractors will extend the final completion date of the Salem Parkway project through January.

The extra work includes upgrading traffic cameras along the whole route between the connecting points to Interstate 40 on both the east and the west. Also, Shaver said, the contractors are busy installing directional signs downtown and in other areas in connection with Salem Parkway.

Most of the work on the part of Salem Parkway downtown is complete and many people might not notice the small projects that are taking place as the entire renovation nears its final completion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: carbaugh2 on December 15, 2020, 12:30:40 PM
When the US 64 Asheboro Bypass opens, can someone drive along it and get pictures of the new bypass? I don't want to have to wait for Google Maps and its Street View to be updated to see what this new roadway looks like.

Just use the search phrase "Tom Allen Asheboro 64bypass" on YouTube. He has been providing drone updates (over 300 now) throughout construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2020, 01:36:06 PM
I just watched the YouTube video. It was better than any photography of the road would have been! Thanks carbaugh2. Also, I'm glad that they numbered the exits on the bypass, although I suppose that is standard procedure for North Carolina's Department of Transportation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 15, 2020, 05:00:51 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.
Per NCDOT, as of today, opening is currently slated for mid-December.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1334533710478270467

It opens this Friday afternoon.

https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html (https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 18, 2020, 09:41:12 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.
Per NCDOT, as of today, opening is currently slated for mid-December.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1334533710478270467

It opens this Friday afternoon.

https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html (https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html)
The Bypass is open, here's the official NCDOT press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-18-asheboro-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-18-asheboro-bypass-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2020, 03:36:08 PM
The Asheboro Bypass is very close to completion.
Per NCDOT, as of today, opening is currently slated for mid-December.
https://twitter.com/NCDOT/status/1334533710478270467

It opens this Friday afternoon.

https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html (https://greensboro.com/news/local/us-64-bypass-expected-to-ease-dixie-drive-traffic-in-asheboro-starting-friday/article_99a0536e-3eec-11eb-a81f-274962d0c27f.html)
The Bypass is open, here's the official NCDOT press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-18-asheboro-bypass-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-18-asheboro-bypass-opens.aspx)

Someone took a cruise on the bypass and posted it on YouTube.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 22, 2020, 03:42:55 PM
Drove the new Asheboro bypass today on the way back from Hillsborough.  Photo set westbound.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/albums/72157717481245257
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2020, 02:39:07 PM
Annual toll rate increase for the Triangle Expressway and Monroe Expressway goes into effect this Friday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-29-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-12-29-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 29, 2020, 07:19:11 PM
The I74 extension on the WS Beltline still is not showing on Google maps, must not be much traffic
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 30, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
The I74 extension on the WS Beltline still is not showing on Google maps, must not be much traffic

They usually take their sweet time updating Maps. I'm actually surprised they updated as quick as they did to show the US-64 Asheboro Bypass and the newest section of I-840 in Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2020, 07:15:43 PM
Here in Wisconsin, there has been no terrain update for the Baraboo bypass on US 12, and that project has been completed since October 2017. No wonder everyone says Google Maps Sucks! I still use it because I love the Street View mode.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Stephane Dumas on December 30, 2020, 08:21:54 PM
No wonder everyone says Google Maps Sucks! I still use it because I love the Street View mode.

Same for me, if only Apple Maps was more widely available for Windows users (you could still use it via DuckDuckGo.com or Satellites.pro but without all Apple Maps features) and Bing Maps decide to cover Canada with Streetside. Maybe that'll shake things at Google maps, I know I should stop dreaming in color.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 31, 2020, 01:35:47 PM
Just completed a nice sized update to how North Carolina eventually built I-40 from the Triangle to Wilmington.  A lot of the information in this update deals with how the extension of I-40 to I-95 gradually moved south from Smithfield to Four Oaks and ultimately near Benson.

A few things of note:

1. A Benson Lawyer named Joe Levinson was instrumental in moving 40 from Smithfield to Benson and eventually Wilmington.
2. NCDOT had a number of different corridors in the early 70s and attempted a number of compromises by attempting to split 40 into two spurs (the split pretty much would occur near Clayton)
3. It really wasn't until 1977 that the Benson route was decided upon - the decision to extend to Wilmington would happen one year later.
4. Finally, part of NC's current interstate blitz can be traced to 1) the 1968 request for various extensions but also to the final decision to route 40 to Wilmington.  If routed to Morehead City - we would still have had a strong push to built an Interstate to Wilmington and it may have come earlier than the relatively recent designation of I-42 to Morehead City.

The updated information begins in the Saga of the last 120 Miles section.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 01, 2021, 11:36:48 AM
I drove past the site of the NW Rockingham bypass yesterday.  NCDOT has made considerable progress since I last passed thru in August.  When heading south on US 220 as the freeway transitions into an at-grade highway and around the BIG curve you can now see the actual pavement beds heading SW under the Harrington Road overpass.

Back in August, there was no pavement bed just grass!

The weather was rainy so I could not stop and get a picture or video.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 03, 2021, 11:12:36 PM
I drove past the site of the NW Rockingham bypass yesterday.  NCDOT has made considerable progress since I last passed thru in August.  When heading south on US 220 as the freeway transitions into an at-grade highway and around the BIG curve you can now see the actual pavement beds heading SW under the Harrington Road overpass.

Back in August, there was no pavement bed just grass!

The weather was rainy so I could not stop and get a picture or video.
Here's a photo of the future interchange with US 74, courtesy of Tracy Hamm:
(https://malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg11th121a.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 04, 2021, 01:22:42 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to all 6 miles of US-29 in Caswell County between Rockingham County and the VA state line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 04, 2021, 01:43:35 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to all 6 miles of US-29 in Caswell County between Rockingham County and the VA state line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx)

I wonder if this is I-785 related.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 04, 2021, 01:47:59 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract for improvements to all 6 miles of US-29 in Caswell County between Rockingham County and the VA state line.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-04-us-29-caswell-county-resurfacing.aspx)

I wonder if this is I-785 related.
Just seems like a routine maintenance / resurfacing project, the segment already meets interstate standards. The portion of the US-29 freeway through Reidsville was resurfaced a couple years back.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on January 10, 2021, 08:10:05 PM
In the AASHTO 2020 Autumn Meeting, they approved North Carolina's request to eliminate US 70 Business and US 258 Business through Kinston (link (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/01/USRN-Applications_Fall-2020_Combined.pdf)).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on January 11, 2021, 09:30:48 AM
In the AASHTO 2020 Autumn Meeting, they approved North Carolina's request to eliminate US 70 Business and US 258 Business through Kinston (link (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/01/USRN-Applications_Fall-2020_Combined.pdf)).


Wait so it's just gonna be Vernon Ave. now with only NC 58 showing up when you turn on Queen St.?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 13, 2021, 08:50:10 AM
The newest section of the Winston-Salem Beltway (Us 158 to US 311) has now been placed on Google Maps.  The only issue is they left half of the interchange at US 158 off.  There was a similar problem with the Lawndale Drive interchange in Greensboro, but that was recently fixed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 15, 2021, 09:05:43 AM
Speed Limit Increasing on Two Roads in Onslow County (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-01-15-onslow-county-speed-limit-increases.aspx)
Quote
JACKSONVILLE — The N.C. Department of Transportation is increasing the speed limits of two sections of roadways in Onslow County.

Based on the results of a recent study by the department with the City of Jacksonville’s support, Jacksonville Bypass (U.S. 17/N.C. 24) between U.S. 258 and Marine Boulevard (U.S. 17 Business) will increase from 55 mph to 60 mph. Jacksonville Parkway from Marine Boulevard to Western Boulevard (N.C. 53) will increase from 45 mph to 50 mph.

Drivers should remain alert over several days next week as crews will need to change out multiple signs to reflect the new speed limits. The changes are expected to happen beginning Jan. 19 and between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. each day. The work is weather dependent.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 19, 2021, 08:35:23 PM
After being delayed nearly two years, the project to rehabilitate North Carolina's tallest bridge(s) will be let in March. The project, located on I-26 in Henderson County, will replace the deck and superstructure of the Peter Guice Memorial Bridge and tie the two structures into one. Both structures are currently rated as structurally deficient.

15BPR.20 Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/0nqPrVlL51W45CxoVS/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on January 19, 2021, 09:38:12 PM
After being delayed nearly two years, the project to rehabilitate North Carolina's tallest bridge(s) will be let in March. The project, located on I-26 in Henderson County, will replace the deck and superstructure of the Peter Guice Memorial Bridge and tie the two structures into one. Both structures are currently rated as structurally deficient.

15BPR.20 Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/0nqPrVlL51W45CxoVS/giphy.gif)

That's similar to what Caltrans did with the CA 99 bridge over the San Joaquin River north of Fresno; took the two existing 2-lane bridges (one built in the 1930's when the alignment was selected, the other built in the '50's when it was twinned as an expressway), both of which were, like the I-26 bridges, structurally questionable when the reconstruction was planned -- and placed a crossing span beween them, cantilevered from each of the original bridges' support structure.   Caltrans D6 elected to only stripe the bridge for 4 lanes, leaving the inner two unused for the time being, likely because the portion of the freeway in Madera County north of the bridge was only itself 4 lanes, while the Fresno County portion to the south had been widened to 6 lanes earlier.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on January 24, 2021, 11:46:10 AM
After being delayed nearly two years, the project to rehabilitate North Carolina's tallest bridge(s) will be let in March. The project, located on I-26 in Henderson County, will replace the deck and superstructure of the Peter Guice Memorial Bridge and tie the two structures into one. Both structures are currently rated as structurally deficient.

15BPR.20 Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/)

(https://media.giphy.com/media/0nqPrVlL51W45CxoVS/giphy.gif)

drove over that bridge a few months ago. Its hard to tell its the tallest bridge in the state by the view off either side, but i think i will wait to drive over it again until after the work is done.....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 24, 2021, 05:34:34 PM
It's unfortunate that NCDOT didn't expand the project limits of project I-4400 (the I-26 widening) beyond U.S. 25 to include the stretch across Green River. That section desperately needs truck climbing lanes, particularly westbound. While the widened structure could theoretically accommodate three lanes with a design exception, I don't believe the approaches on either side will be able to receive a design exception due to the geometry of the alignment. There is a 50 mph advisory sign (https://goo.gl/maps/a44uDyDoBHXpcn5q9) on the eastbound approach, and the profile in the roadway plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf) notes that the design speed is 50 mph for the curves on both sides of the bridge, which does not meet the posted speed limit of 55 mph. This is an $18 million band-aid to keep the existing structures from falling apart since NCDOT can't seem to start planning for anything until it's 30 years overdue.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on January 24, 2021, 07:08:04 PM
It's unfortunate that NCDOT didn't expand the project limits of project I-4400 (the I-26 widening) beyond U.S. 25 to include the stretch across Green River. That section desperately needs truck climbing lanes, particularly westbound. While the widened structure could theoretically accommodate three lanes with a design exception, I don't believe the approaches on either side will be able to receive a design exception due to the geometry of the alignment. There is a 50 mph advisory sign (https://goo.gl/maps/a44uDyDoBHXpcn5q9) on the eastbound approach, and the profile in the roadway plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf) notes that the design speed is 50 mph for the curves on both sides of the bridge, which does not meet the posted speed limit of 55 mph. This is an $18 million band-aid to keep the existing structures from falling apart since NCDOT can't seem to start planning for anything until it's 30 years overdue.
Oh yeah. That whole section is going to be super well traveled, especially as there are more and more people moving to Asheville, especially those who are from/half in Florida. Traffic doesn’t start at US 25/Hendersonville, and NCDOT is ignoring that fact, compounded by the steep grades on a heavily trucked route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on January 27, 2021, 09:23:58 AM
Just completed a nice sized update to how North Carolina eventually built I-40 from the Triangle to Wilmington.  A lot of the information in this update deals with how the extension of I-40 to I-95 gradually moved south from Smithfield to Four Oaks and ultimately near Benson.

A few things of note:

1. A Benson Lawyer named Joe Levinson was instrumental in moving 40 from Smithfield to Benson and eventually Wilmington.
2. NCDOT had a number of different corridors in the early 70s and attempted a number of compromises by attempting to split 40 into two spurs (the split pretty much would occur near Clayton)
3. It really wasn't until 1977 that the Benson route was decided upon - the decision to extend to Wilmington would happen one year later.
4. Finally, part of NC's current interstate blitz can be traced to 1) the 1968 request for various extensions but also to the final decision to route 40 to Wilmington.  If routed to Morehead City - we would still have had a strong push to built an Interstate to Wilmington and it may have come earlier than the relatively recent designation of I-42 to Morehead City.

The updated information begins in the Saga of the last 120 Miles section.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2016/08/to-shore-north-carolinas-struggle-to.html
Good to know!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 27, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
It's unfortunate that NCDOT didn't expand the project limits of project I-4400 (the I-26 widening) beyond U.S. 25 to include the stretch across Green River. That section desperately needs truck climbing lanes, particularly westbound. While the widened structure could theoretically accommodate three lanes with a design exception, I don't believe the approaches on either side will be able to receive a design exception due to the geometry of the alignment. There is a 50 mph advisory sign (https://goo.gl/maps/a44uDyDoBHXpcn5q9) on the eastbound approach, and the profile in the roadway plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf) notes that the design speed is 50 mph for the curves on both sides of the bridge, which does not meet the posted speed limit of 55 mph. This is an $18 million band-aid to keep the existing structures from falling apart since NCDOT can't seem to start planning for anything until it's 30 years overdue.

Remember less purchasing power with limited funding that must be spread very thinly over all 100 counties to maintain 80,000 miles of roads. I think they do a great job with just $5-6 billion a year, and that includes running the ferries and other stuff under their responsibility.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 27, 2021, 09:22:28 PM
It's unfortunate that NCDOT didn't expand the project limits of project I-4400 (the I-26 widening) beyond U.S. 25 to include the stretch across Green River. That section desperately needs truck climbing lanes, particularly westbound. While the widened structure could theoretically accommodate three lanes with a design exception, I don't believe the approaches on either side will be able to receive a design exception due to the geometry of the alignment. There is a 50 mph advisory sign (https://goo.gl/maps/a44uDyDoBHXpcn5q9) on the eastbound approach, and the profile in the roadway plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf) notes that the design speed is 50 mph for the curves on both sides of the bridge, which does not meet the posted speed limit of 55 mph. This is an $18 million band-aid to keep the existing structures from falling apart since NCDOT can't seem to start planning for anything until it's 30 years overdue.

Remember less purchasing power with limited funding that must be spread very thinly over all 100 counties to maintain 80,000 miles of roads. I think they do a great job with just $5-6 billion a year, and that includes running the ferries and other stuff under their responsibility.

Yeah. They're doing a great job. That's why, despite a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars and strong economic headwinds, they're proceeding with much needed projects like the U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass. They only need an additional $20 million for right-of-way acquisition (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Archive/202101_MeetingArchive.pdf), on top of the $36 million they've already allocated for ONE section. They've done such a great job with planning and preliminary engineering that the ESTIMATED construction cost has increased by $20 million to more than $110 million. Since the costs have increased so much, they've had to delay construction of the next section until 2028 (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf).

So, for a mere $170 million, you get 3.5 miles of an incomplete bypass that - one of these years or decades - will allow a few vehicles to bypass a dying mill town in nowhere North Carolina; once they've shelled out another $110 million (or much more) to complete the next section.

This 90's road building mentality ain't gonna cut it much longer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 31, 2021, 08:35:52 PM
Had a chance yesterday to explore Rowan, Davidson, and Stanly Counties.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/new-camera-lets-roadgeek.html

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 03, 2021, 04:51:07 PM
Upcoming weekend closure at the I-40/I-440 interchange in SE Raleigh.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-03-i-440-east-i-40-east-flyover-demo.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-03-i-440-east-i-40-east-flyover-demo.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 05, 2021, 12:29:00 PM
As mentioned in the Charlotte thread, extended vehicles will be allowed to use the I-77 toll lanes, beginning February 8.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-05-extended-vehicles-use-i-77-express-lanes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-05-extended-vehicles-use-i-77-express-lanes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 09, 2021, 08:58:49 AM
It's unfortunate that NCDOT didn't expand the project limits of project I-4400 (the I-26 widening) beyond U.S. 25 to include the stretch across Green River. That section desperately needs truck climbing lanes, particularly westbound. While the widened structure could theoretically accommodate three lanes with a design exception, I don't believe the approaches on either side will be able to receive a design exception due to the geometry of the alignment. There is a 50 mph advisory sign (https://goo.gl/maps/a44uDyDoBHXpcn5q9) on the eastbound approach, and the profile in the roadway plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%20C204202/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf) notes that the design speed is 50 mph for the curves on both sides of the bridge, which does not meet the posted speed limit of 55 mph. This is an $18 million band-aid to keep the existing structures from falling apart since NCDOT can't seem to start planning for anything until it's 30 years overdue.

Remember less purchasing power with limited funding that must be spread very thinly over all 100 counties to maintain 80,000 miles of roads. I think they do a great job with just $5-6 billion a year, and that includes running the ferries and other stuff under their responsibility.

Yeah. They're doing a great job. That's why, despite a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars and strong economic headwinds, they're proceeding with much needed projects like the U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass. They only need an additional $20 million for right-of-way acquisition (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Archive/202101_MeetingArchive.pdf), on top of the $36 million they've already allocated for ONE section. They've done such a great job with planning and preliminary engineering that the ESTIMATED construction cost has increased by $20 million to more than $110 million. Since the costs have increased so much, they've had to delay construction of the next section until 2028 (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemN_Handout.pdf).

So, for a mere $170 million, you get 3.5 miles of an incomplete bypass that - one of these years or decades - will allow a few vehicles to bypass a dying mill town in nowhere North Carolina; once they've shelled out another $110 million (or much more) to complete the next section.

This 90's road building mentality ain't gonna cut it much longer.

Apparently US221 is part of a larger effort to bring a  4 lane highway through the area, a decades -old goal is to bring a 4 lane , modern, divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population.

From the bypoass website: "The project is a part of a larger project to create a 4 lane highway from the NC/SC Stateline to I-40 in Marion."

I would say that eventually you have to build something in every area of the state. Some will be more needed than others, but they try to give citizens something for a lifetime of paying gas taxes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 09, 2021, 09:15:10 AM
Quote from: architect77
but they try to give citizens something for a lifetime of paying gas taxes.

NC has a very extensive paved secondary road system.  That's what they got.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on February 10, 2021, 03:12:40 AM
Quote from: architect77
but they try to give citizens something for a lifetime of paying gas taxes.

NC has a very extensive paved secondary road system.  That's what they got.

Very true.

Most of NC's non-primary roads, even in rural areas, are in much better shape than many other states and it's been that way since at least the 1980's. I'll definitely give them that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 10, 2021, 09:33:58 AM
Apparently US221 is part of a larger effort to bring a  4 lane highway through the area, a decades -old goal is to bring a 4 lane , modern, divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population.

Sure, throw another quarter of a billion dollars at it.

This 90's road building mentality ain't gonna cut it much longer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 11, 2021, 09:47:44 AM
Apparently US221 is part of a larger effort to bring a  4 lane highway through the area, a decades -old goal is to bring a 4 lane , modern, divided highway to within 10 miles of 96% of the population.

I don't know why that little part is costing so much money. But there is some basis if it's part of a bigger overall corridor. And NCDOT has certainly made plenty of bad decisions over the decades like the new type of pavement or whatever on I-40 near Chapel Hill that had to be replaced, or I-40 through Raleigh with the strange foundation that led to rebuilding the entire freeway from scratch.

Those 65,000 miles of secondary roads are special compared to other states. But they were paid for long, long, ago. When people in all 100 counties are paying up to $8 per tank for NC gas taxes, I think over their lifetimes they should get something improved in their area. Maintenance of the existing network of roads isn't enough.

But I'm not for wasting funding for the purpose of building something in every region for the hell of it. That used to go on when they were dividing 30% of the yearly gas tax revenue evenly among the highwya divisions. McCrory redid the funding entirely and it's all based on needs and benefits to an area.

Thank God early on the state wanted to have the best roads built to the highest standards. That set a precedent and a high bar that's remained ever since albeit somewhat watered down.

Only a very few states spend extra for the best footings for signs attached to the ground or round the corners of the large overhead signs. The I-40/I-85 duplex through Burlington is almost 25 years old and everything still looks perfect. The blue gas/food/lodging signs are all perfectly level after 25 years with severe weather events, etc.


The highway system is aging and that's the biggest issue now. At some point they will need to stop building new and just focus on renewing what's already built.
Sure, throw another quarter of a billion dollars at it.

Georgia cannot erect overhead signs that are visually level. 80% statewide all lean down to one side. Shoulder signs mostly don't have concrete footings at all. They don't remove litter regularly, and there are no overhead guidance signs at all on non-interstate roads even at junctions with interstates. They do the bare minimum possible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 14, 2021, 12:46:57 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-4738-2019-04-30.aspx

I'm guessing this project has been scrapped because of the great impacts to the wetlands and businesses?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 14, 2021, 02:19:05 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-4738-2019-04-30.aspx

I'm guessing this project has been scrapped because of the great impacts to the wetlands and businesses?

It is in the STIP dated Feb 2021.  It has been and continues to be shown as unfunded...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 14, 2021, 04:07:02 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5932-2019-05-16.aspx

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Will this project still happen? Because this is one of the worst proposals I've ever seen in my life. And yes, it's from May 2019. I want to review it again
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on February 14, 2021, 06:02:10 PM
So like kind of purposely through two fast food joints?
...
Okay....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 14, 2021, 06:18:04 PM
So like kind of purposely through two fast food joints?
...
Okay....
Yes.

And it's 3 not 2. Also, it goes through a gas station aswell. How can we fix that?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 14, 2021, 06:33:20 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5932-2019-05-16.aspx

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Will this project still happen? Because this is one of the worst proposals I've ever seen in my life. And yes, it's from May 2019. I want to review it again

The pdf of the STIP I linked to is searchable...this project has $ set aside for right of way and utilities in FY 2025 and 2026; construction ($29M) shows as unfunded
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on February 16, 2021, 11:57:46 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/U-5932-2019-05-16.aspx

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Will this project still happen? Because this is one of the worst proposals I've ever seen in my life. And yes, it's from May 2019. I want to review it again

The pdf of the STIP I linked to is searchable...this project has $ set aside for right of way and utilities in FY 2025 and 2026; construction ($29M) shows as unfunded
This looks VERY similar to NC 55/US 64 interchange. 😳
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 18, 2021, 08:29:19 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual informational meeting on December 3 to give an update on the ongoing NC-12 "jug handle" bridge project in Rodanthe. Completion is currently expected in late 2021.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-24-december-rodanthe-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2020/2020-11-24-december-rodanthe-meeting.aspx)

Another virtual meeting will be held on March 4.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-18-march-rodanthe-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-18-march-rodanthe-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 20, 2021, 12:37:04 PM
The Wil-Cox Bridge is one of the few remaining open-spandrel concrete arch bridges in North Carolina.  Opened in 1924, it is now the centerpiece of Davidson County's Yadkin River Park.   The bridge was scheduled to be demolished about a decade ago when NCDOT built two new I-85 bridges just downstream.  Fortunately, Davidson County took ownership of the bridge to preserve it and allow future generations to enjoy it along with learning the over 12,000-year history of the area known as The Trading Ford.'

https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2021/02/yadkin-river-park-wil-cox-bridge.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 22, 2021, 09:07:20 PM
At Waynesville, why can't there be a spur like an I-x40. If anything it will probably be I-740 or I-940. Or even better, going all the way to Bryson City.

I'm not being fictional, btw.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on February 22, 2021, 10:04:59 PM
At Waynesville, why can't there be a spur like an I-x40. If anything it will probably be I-740 or I-940. Or even better, going all the way to Bryson City.

I'm not being fictional, btw.
It’s not very fast, but the standards aren’t bad. I think to Waynesville you might have an Interstate standard highway, although I believe it is 55 and 60 mph. It would need work in a few sections (Whittier-Sylvia, Sylva-Waynesville) to go all the way to Bryson
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 22, 2021, 11:04:44 PM
At Waynesville, why can't there be a spur like an I-x40. If anything it will probably be I-740 or I-940. Or even better, going all the way to Bryson City.

I'm not being fictional, btw.
It’s not very fast, but the standards aren’t bad. I think to Waynesville you might have an Interstate standard highway, although I believe it is 55 and 60 mph. It would need work in a few sections (Whittier-Sylvia, Sylva-Waynesville) to go all the way to Bryson
There's freeways there but it kinda tells me they are in odd locations
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 23, 2021, 02:21:20 PM
How many more Interstates does North Carolina need? I know the potential numbers aren't maxed out, but I sure am.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 23, 2021, 07:46:23 PM
How many more Interstates does North Carolina need?

NCDOT: "Yes."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on February 23, 2021, 09:33:13 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/rs6qylwzewi61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=95787a3bc0a70eb7fce0edc8e8e978d019fdc094)
Lowercase stop sign.. In north Carolina. Can anyone guess where this is? Hint: Its a restaurant everyone loves.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2021, 09:34:10 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/rs6qylwzewi61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=95787a3bc0a70eb7fce0edc8e8e978d019fdc094)
Lowercase stop sign.. In north Carolina. Can anyone guess where this is? Hint: Its a restaurant everyone loves.
Chick-Fil-A?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2021, 09:53:16 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/rs6qylwzewi61.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=95787a3bc0a70eb7fce0edc8e8e978d019fdc094)
Lowercase stop sign.. In north Carolina. Can anyone guess where this is? Hint: Its a restaurant everyone loves.
Chick-Fil-A?

Looks like the one at the (almost) new Chick-fil-A at South Square in Durham.  The one it replaced was previously a double drive-thru Checkers with no indoor seating.  Oh well, there's no indoors at the new one either due to their COVID-19 response.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2021, 10:01:14 PM
I hate those stop signs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on February 23, 2021, 11:33:49 PM
(and not everyone loves Chik-Fil-A...)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 23, 2021, 11:43:11 PM
(and not everyone loves Chik-Fil-A...)


The Democrats for sure. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 24, 2021, 01:00:34 AM
(and not everyone loves Chik-Fil-A...)
My parents hate it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: X99 on February 24, 2021, 10:37:25 AM
(and not everyone loves Chik-Fil-A...)
I get Chick-Fil-A Sauce packets mailed to me in Rapid City because the nearest one is five hours away in Sioux Falls.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on February 24, 2021, 11:10:11 AM
(and not everyone loves Chik-Fil-A...)


The Democrats for sure.

Interesting comment, that aligns acceptance of the LGBT community with the Democratic Party...

I would have thought that such was not tied to party lines:  Those that were concerned about Chick-Fil-A's anti-LGBT donations and those that were not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 25, 2021, 03:24:01 PM
Update on the I-26 improvement project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-i-26-henderson-county-butler-bridge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-i-26-henderson-county-butler-bridge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 25, 2021, 05:08:46 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-gastonia-interstate-85-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-gastonia-interstate-85-interchange.aspx)

Quote
​GASTONIA — Drivers should be on the lookout for a new traffic pattern at the Interstate 85 interchange with U.S. 321 in northern Gastonia tomorrow.

N.C. Department of Transportation contractors plan to open the new ramp from U.S. 321 South to I-85 North by Friday morning. The ramp is replacing the existing loop onto the northbound interstate, giving drivers more time to get up to speed and merge with interstate traffic.

The ramp was originally scheduled to open in November, but was delayed due to multiple weather events. The new I-85 South ramp to northbound U.S. 321 opened on Nov. 16.

Motorists should remember to use caution while adjusting to new traffic patterns.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 25, 2021, 05:59:34 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-gastonia-interstate-85-interchange.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-gastonia-interstate-85-interchange.aspx)

Quote
​GASTONIA — Drivers should be on the lookout for a new traffic pattern at the Interstate 85 interchange with U.S. 321 in northern Gastonia tomorrow.

N.C. Department of Transportation contractors plan to open the new ramp from U.S. 321 South to I-85 North by Friday morning. The ramp is replacing the existing loop onto the northbound interstate, giving drivers more time to get up to speed and merge with interstate traffic.

The ramp was originally scheduled to open in November, but was delayed due to multiple weather events. The new I-85 South ramp to northbound U.S. 321 opened on Nov. 16.

Motorists should remember to use caution while adjusting to new traffic patterns.
Here are maps for this project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-85-widening-gaston-county/Documents/us-321-interchange.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 25, 2021, 08:09:37 PM
I can see it's definitely part of 8-laining the highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 26, 2021, 08:29:07 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 26, 2021, 09:40:30 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)
Would definitely help get from Greenville to the Kinston shops faster (basically bypassing the downtown area which is a slum area).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 26, 2021, 11:49:57 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)

Would definitely help get from Greenville to the Kinston shops faster (basically bypassing the downtown area which is a slum area).

AppleMaps jumped the gun and this section of NC-148 is already showing as open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2021, 01:53:36 AM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)
Took long enough. This will definitely change the way transportation goes in the area, and could bring some more traffic onto the existing sections of parkway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 27, 2021, 07:34:14 AM
Looking at a map, are there plans to extend the parkway south back to NC 11?  It would appear to be a logical choice, but it looks like there is a very environmentally sensitive area to the south.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 27, 2021, 10:04:04 AM
I find it strange that they relocated the small portion of US 70 to build the interchange with NC 148. It tripped me out the first time I drove through after it was completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 27, 2021, 10:24:11 AM
Looking at a map, are there plans to extend the parkway south back to NC 11?  It would appear to be a logical choice, but it looks like there is a very environmentally sensitive area to the south.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_0802A_Report_2010.pdf

I assume you're talking about this project?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on February 27, 2021, 12:58:38 PM
Looking at a map, are there plans to extend the parkway south back to NC 11?  It would appear to be a logical choice, but it looks like there is a very environmentally sensitive area to the south.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_0802A_Report_2010.pdf

I assume you're talking about this project?
I read that as take the parkway from its WESTERN terminus south to NC-11 on the SW side of Kinston. Extending the parkway west would help get more cars off the streets of Kinston though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on February 27, 2021, 01:00:10 PM
Looking at a map, are there plans to extend the parkway south back to NC 11?  It would appear to be a logical choice, but it looks like there is a very environmentally sensitive area to the south.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_0802A_Report_2010.pdf

I assume you're talking about this project?

The selected alternative 1SB (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_Alternatives_KeyMap.pdf) for the Kinston bypass will provide an all-freeway connection back over to NC 11 around the south side, though it won't at all be a high-speed interchange (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Documents/selected-alternative-page-5.pdf), and NC 11 to the south is undivided four lanes with a center turning lane and traffic signals for a few miles until it becomes divided again. I suspect if anything at all is done to create a proper NC 11 bypass for Kinston, it would just be extending the parkway south roughly along the red alternative line to seamlessly tie into NC 11. Even that seems a bit overkill, though, let alone another entire bypass around the east side. Considering NCDOT's financial troubles, I'd expect the most they do here is extend the parkway south and upgrade the middle segment to full Interstate standards, maybe rerouting NC 11 onto it (or replacing NC 148 with NC 11 Bypass).

- fixed URL code. -rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 27, 2021, 02:18:08 PM
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Lenoir%20County/Lenoir%20County%20Highway%20Map.pdf

This is the most recent CTP map i can find. And there's no southern extension from the CF harvey parkway to NC 11. For the Kinston bypass, Alternative 1SB was chosen.

Also, at the interchange where I-42 is and where the NC 11 freeway is, I'm sure that would be a merging interchange.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/kinston-bypass/Documents/selected-alternative-page-6.pdf

But when looking at this document, it looks like they dropped that from further study and decided to make a freeway that extends east of the CF harvey parkway instead.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 27, 2021, 07:46:10 PM
Will existing NC 148 between US 258 and NC 58 be upgraded to freeway standards in the future, since the NC 148 extension is being built to freeway standards? Also, I doubt this was ever proposed, and probably isn't likely, perhaps NC 11 from NC 148's new eastern terminus to the new NC 11 bypass of Ayden, Winterville and Greenville could be upgraded to freeway standards to provide a seamless freeway route from NC 58 (and potentially US 70/Future Interstate 42) to US 264/future Interstate 587.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2021, 07:58:59 PM
Will existing NC 148 between US 258 and NC 58 be upgraded to freeway standards in the future, since the NC 148 extension is being built to freeway standards? Also, I doubt this was ever proposed, and probably isn't likely, perhaps NC 11 from NC 148's new eastern terminus to the new NC 11 bypass of Ayden, Winterville and Greenville could be upgraded to freeway standards to provide a seamless freeway route from NC 58 (and potentially US 70/Future Interstate 42) to US 264/future Interstate 587.
While a low priority, once I-87 and I-42 are completed in Eastern North Carolina, I could see a I-x42 or I-x87 corridor along NC-11 between Kinston and Bethel be pursued in the future, providing Kinston and Greenville a direct connection to the I-87 corridor to Norfolk.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 28, 2021, 11:21:07 AM
Will existing NC 148 between US 258 and NC 58 be upgraded to freeway standards in the future, since the NC 148 extension is being built to freeway standards? Also, I doubt this was ever proposed, and probably isn't likely, perhaps NC 11 from NC 148's new eastern terminus to the new NC 11 bypass of Ayden, Winterville and Greenville could be upgraded to freeway standards to provide a seamless freeway route from NC 58 (and potentially US 70/Future Interstate 42) to US 264/future Interstate 587.
While a low priority, once I-87 and I-42 are completed in Eastern North Carolina, I could see a I-x42 or I-x87 corridor along NC-11 between Kinston and Bethel be pursued in the future, providing Kinston and Greenville a direct connection to the I-87 corridor to Norfolk.

I think we'll see an I-x87 eventually. While there hasn't been significant talk of a future interstate there since 2016, I seriously doubt Kinston and Greenville have dropped the idea altogether. I think NCDOT had upgrading of NC-11 to interstate standards between NC-148 and the Greenville SW Bypass as a future project to be scored on the STIP at one point, though I don't know if it's still listed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 01, 2021, 04:01:20 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)

It's open.

https://www.witn.com/2021/02/26/cf-harvey-parkway-extension-to-open-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/ (https://www.witn.com/2021/02/26/cf-harvey-parkway-extension-to-open-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2021, 04:16:07 PM
The C.F. Harvey Parkway (NC-148) extension near Kinston from NC-58 to NC-11 is expected to open Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-26-lenoir-county-project-opens-early.aspx)

It's open.

https://www.witn.com/2021/02/26/cf-harvey-parkway-extension-to-open-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/ (https://www.witn.com/2021/02/26/cf-harvey-parkway-extension-to-open-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/)
That's what I like to hear. Now that leaves the kinston bypass...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2021, 08:02:03 PM
Looking at a map, are there plans to extend the parkway south back to NC 11?  It would appear to be a logical choice, but it looks like there is a very environmentally sensitive area to the south.
Though, I think part of alternatives 11/12 (red) could still be used to divert NC-11 traffic off going through Kinston (without the freeway going from the CF harvey parkway to west US-70).

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A11_3.pdf

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A1SB_3a.pdf This document, make it look like this interchange, but continue the southern extension with a folded diamond interchange.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/R-2553/july-2019-alternative-maps/R-2553_A11_4.pdf

I say keep these 2 documents to give it a nice western bypass of Kinston.

I'm guessing this is what you want and I do think that these two should be considered for a western bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2021, 08:05:56 PM
Will existing NC 148 between US 258 and NC 58 be upgraded to freeway standards in the future, since the NC 148 extension is being built to freeway standards? Also, I doubt this was ever proposed, and probably isn't likely, perhaps NC 11 from NC 148's new eastern terminus to the new NC 11 bypass of Ayden, Winterville and Greenville could be upgraded to freeway standards to provide a seamless freeway route from NC 58 (and potentially US 70/Future Interstate 42) to US 264/future Interstate 587.
While a low priority, once I-87 and I-42 are completed in Eastern North Carolina, I could see a I-x42 or I-x87 corridor along NC-11 between Kinston and Bethel be pursued in the future, providing Kinston and Greenville a direct connection to the I-87 corridor to Norfolk.
I'm sure it will, and it wouldn't be that hard, except there's a few signals and an at-grade rail crossing and some sharp curves that would need to be fixed. But most certainly not gonna happen until NC-11 from the SW bypass and the CF harvey parkway gets upgraded to a freeway first.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2021, 09:08:02 PM
https://www.witn.com/2021/03/01/pitt-county-us-264-lanes-shut-down-after-report-of-shooting/

Why can't people act normal???!!

Quote
PITT COUNTY, N.C. (WITN) - Eastbound lanes of U.S. 264 just outside of Greenville are shut down after reports of a shooting.

Multiple law enforcement and rescue vehicles are blocking the busy highway across from the DSM plant.

It happened around 5:30 p.m. Deputies were putting up crime scene tape in an area just past the Coca-Cola bottling plant. It appears the shooting happened on the highway and there is a car as part of the crime scene.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on March 03, 2021, 02:08:45 PM
https://abc11.com/10385293/ (https://abc11.com/10385293/)
Our country's infrastructure gets a C-... really?
Quote
WTVD - The United States gets an overall C minus grade on infrastructure in 2021, according to The American Society of Engineers.

The society represents civil engineers around the world and has released a scorecard every four years since 1998.

The United States was evaluated on 17 categories, including aviation, roads, bridges, drinking water, energy and schools. Rail earned the highest mark with A-B and transit scored the lowest with a D minus.

The group said the C minus grade is actually an improvement for the country, saying this is the first time the nation's infrastructure has scored above the 'D' range in two decades.

Even so, the society's executive director said the score is not a grade to be proud of.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 03, 2021, 09:13:10 PM
Generous, compared to what I'd give it.  We've drastically underinvested in infrastructure for decades.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 04, 2021, 04:12:19 AM
Generous, compared to what I'd give it.  We've drastically underinvested in infrastructure for decades.


Well NC has done much more than most states except for Florida and Texas. NC's infrastructure is valued at $575 billion per their MOPAR reports.

As a whole though all of this country's different systems have reached the end of their 1st generation service life. How it will ever get rebuilt with the high costs of today I don't know. We need to reform this country's penchant for sueing everybody and everything all the time. That would help a lot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 04, 2021, 12:42:41 PM
Generous, compared to what I'd give it.  We've drastically underinvested in infrastructure for decades.

Agreed. Luckily, it seems to be the next priority in DC now that the stimulus bill is all but certainly a done deal. Hopefully, something significant will come of it, however slim the chances are in a narrow Senate...

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/infrastructure/541607-biden-to-meet-with-bipartisan-lawmakers-on (https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/infrastructure/541607-biden-to-meet-with-bipartisan-lawmakers-on)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 04, 2021, 08:10:44 PM
Look at US-264 going to Washington. Unpaved and it looks shitty. Evans going to Old Tar is bad too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 05, 2021, 01:17:04 PM
NC 27 was recently rerouted in Charlotte, and of course NCDOT does not have the change request on its website. I had to reach out to them for the I-295 route change before, it seems they do make them but have them not viewable to normal viewers. Anyway, NC 27 is no longer taking Charlottetowne Avenue and Morehead Street, opting instead to stay on Independence Freeway onto the John Belk Freeway then exit at Freedom Drive. If the change form was available, we would know why they opted to move away from the downtown streets and onto the freeway (something they could have done years ago).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 05, 2021, 03:29:43 PM
NC 27 was recently rerouted in Charlotte, and of course NCDOT does not have the change request on its website. I had to reach out to them for the I-295 route change before, it seems they do make them but have them not viewable to normal viewers. Anyway, NC 27 is no longer taking Charlottetowne Avenue and Morehead Street, opting instead to stay on Independence Freeway onto the John Belk Freeway then exit at Freedom Drive. If the change form was available, we would know why they opted to move away from the downtown streets and onto the freeway (something they could have done years ago).

NC 27 does seem to be a route that would have been moved to follow US 74 and I-277 a long time ago. How did you find out about this change before contacting NCDOT?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 03:40:47 PM
https://www.wect.com/2021/03/05/ncdot-raleigh-bridge-wall-that-appears-be-leaning-is-just-an-illusion/

All I can say is that the structure is not straight. Maybe some people are afraid that it will collapse?

Quote
By CBS 17 Digital Desk | March 5, 2021 at 9:50 AM EST - Updated March 5 at 9:50 AM
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — A new flyover bridge in southeast Raleigh is getting some attention for all of the wrong reasons.

A concerned driver believes the wall holding up the new flyover bridge traveling from Interstate 40 east under it at Interstate 440 west is slightly leaning. CBS 17 took those concerns to the North Carolina Department of Transportation to get answers.

Marty Homan, a spokesperson for the NCDOT, said it appears to be leaning because the wall is on a curve and presents a bit of an illusion.

“The wall has been inspected several times over the last year and we have found no issues to date,”  said Homan.

Robert Bullock, resident engineer overseeing the I-40 widening project, said they did hear from three or four people over the last year about the bridge, but stressed it is safe for drivers to drive over and under.

“We continue to monitor it like we do a lot of the walls to make sure we don’t have any issues,”  said Bullock.

He said between the wall being built on a slight curve, the roadway itself on a curve, and the structure being so tall that there are two or three visuals going on to make it look like it may be leaning a certain way or curving more than it should.

“The first part of the wall, sort of the wings area, the part as you are coming up, the contractor did build it a little straighter, so there is a slight turn some people notice, but other than that, that’s what creates some of that illusion, a visualization as of why it may seem to lean forward,”  said engineer Robert Bullock.

He stressed that it is safe for drivers to drive over and under the new flyover bridge.

CBS 17 reached out to the NCDOT to see how often new bridges and structures are inspected and if the number of inspections the flyover bridge wall has undergone is normal.

An NCDOT official told CBS 17 that, “The bridge was continually inspected, as all bridges are, throughout the construction process,”  and that they received two or three calls or questions about the wall and went back out to “review”  the wall each time they received a question or concern.

Asked if they were satisfied with the final product despite what the NCDOT called an “illusion,”  the official said they are happy with the wall.

“NCDOT is satisfied with the final product of the flyover bridge as it meets the design criteria, meets safety criteria, is functionally sound, and successfully serves the needs of the interchange,”  the official said.

The NCDOT did say that part of the wall cap was “built a little straighter than planned”  and said it is “only a visual issue. While not perfect, it is not as much of a mistake as a challenge of curving the coping to match the precast…wall panels.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 05, 2021, 07:13:00 PM
Please don't try to put the image from the news website here tolbs17, since it's a hotlink.  They would know that we're displaying it.  Plus with you posting the entire story (beyond just the link), could get us in trouble here with copyright issues.

So, if you want to show the image in the future with the article, upload it somewhere else first, and maybe not post the full article.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 05, 2021, 08:55:48 PM
^^
I get it. I won't post images.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility_Study_1202A_Report_2015.pdf

Who thinks this project should still happen?

I get that it's to improve connection from the GTP and Wilmington, but why a freeway and an expressway in such a odd location?

Quote
NC 11/NC 903 is proposed to be a freeway in the vicinity of the feasibility study area from Kenansville to Pink Hill and US 258 is proposed as an expressway to be widened to multi‐lanes from Jacksonville, through Richlands, to Kinston.    As an option to upgrading NC 11/NC 903 and US 258, Duplin and Lenoir County officials recommend widening NC 241 between Beulaville and Pink Hill.    The local officials and Rural Planning Organization suggest designating NC 241 as a Strategic Highway Corridor, serving as a freeway facility rather than NC 11/NC 903 (freeway) and US 258 (expressway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 05, 2021, 09:39:45 PM
House Bill 196 (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/House/PDF/H196v7.pdf) that was passed for COVID-19 relief allocates $230 million in Federal funds to the state's Highway Fund.

"$229,282,615 to the Highway Fund that thereby fund and bill State
Transportation Improvement (STI) projects and use federal cash
reimbursements to advance STI projects delayed by the Department to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. All funds shall be used
to advance delayed bridge replacement and interstate maintenance."

The Senate's version (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S172v1.pdf) was tweaked a bit to include litter removal. Not sure what's passed or how anyone keeps up with this stuff.

"(1) $30,000,000 to the Department for maintenance activities within the Roadside
Environmental Unit for litter removal and other activities programmed within
the Roadside Environmental Unit. Notwithstanding G.S. 143C-6-11.1, these
funds are hereby incorporated into the Department Spend Plan to be spent by
the Department as allocated by this section.
(2) $199,282,615 to the Highway Trust Fund to advance State Transportation
Improvement Program (STI) projects delayed by the Department to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. Any remaining funds shall be
used to advance delayed bridge replacement and interstate maintenance."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2021, 06:15:50 PM
Does anyone have an updated document of this link? This one is old and they made many modifications of this one (Like I-87 was originally supposed to use NC-11/US-13).

And the post above, they want to make NC-241/NC-24 a freeway rather than along NC-11/NC-903.

(https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/PublishingImages/SHC_Vision_Plan.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 06, 2021, 06:34:11 PM
Updated in 2015 (the map is fuzzy within for some reason) - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/strategic-corridors/Documents/strategic-corridors-prioritization-policy.pdf#search=%22strategic%20highway%20corridor%22

NC 241 as a freeway is lunacy unless they intend to carry it to I-40...then it might be worth talking about.  Otherwise improvements should be made to US 258...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 06, 2021, 07:08:38 PM
Updated in 2015 (the map is fuzzy within for some reason) - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/strategic-corridors/Documents/strategic-corridors-prioritization-policy.pdf#search=%22strategic%20highway%20corridor%22

NC 241 as a freeway is lunacy unless they intend to carry it to I-40...then it might be worth talking about.  Otherwise improvements should be made to US 258...
I was thinking have the freeway go to Jacksonville.. See my plans in Fictional Highways (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=28678.0)..

Are the corridors mean that the highways will be a freeway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 06, 2021, 09:26:51 PM
Updated in 2015 (the map is fuzzy within for some reason) - https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/strategic-corridors/Documents/strategic-corridors-prioritization-policy.pdf#search=%22strategic%20highway%20corridor%22


Strategic Corridors Map (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/strategic-corridors/Documents/strategic-corridors-map.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 07, 2021, 03:05:49 AM
Beulaville Outer Loop, lol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 07, 2021, 08:45:18 AM
Bummed to see NC18 Shelby to Morganton  off the map
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 08, 2021, 08:24:13 AM
NC 27 does seem to be a route that would have been moved to follow US 74 and I-277 a long time ago. How did you find out about this change before contacting NCDOT?

I recently drove on it, was shocked when I realized the realignment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 08, 2021, 08:30:37 AM
NC 27 does seem to be a route that would have been moved to follow US 74 and I-277 a long time ago. How did you find out about this change before contacting NCDOT?

I recently drove on it, was shocked when I realized the realignment.

Thank you.  The signage must have been changed last year because the latest GSV still showed NC 27 on the old route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 12, 2021, 01:37:56 PM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I just cannot believe that this stretch of 85 has been neglected for so long, while other worthless projects around the state get priority. To me, the entire facility in the county looks like its still in original form.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 12, 2021, 02:32:07 PM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I just cannot believe that this stretch of 85 has been neglected for so long, while other worthless projects around the state get priority. To me, the entire facility in the county looks like its still in original form.
Both I-85 and I-40 east of the split need to be widened to 6 lanes. There's currently a project planned for I-40, though I'm not sure for I-85. I-40 seems to be the higher priority, reasonable so, it has about 20,000 more AADT. But honestly, both roads should've been expanded 20 years ago and I-40 should've been built with 6 lanes when it was originally constructed in the 80s.

The US-15 / 501 freeway south of I-85 also needs a complete reconstruction and widening, and reasonably extended south by upgrading the existing arterial to I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 12, 2021, 03:36:26 PM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I just cannot believe that this stretch of 85 has been neglected for so long, while other worthless projects around the state get priority. To me, the entire facility in the county looks like its still in original form.

It is on the 2020-29 STIP.  The current status is ROW in 2029 and construction in "post year" (which means after 2029).

Upgrading the NC 86 interchange is ROW 2027 and Construction 2029
Upgrading the old NC 86 interchange is ROW 2025 and construction 2028.  This is also on the STIP to widen Old NC 86 from I-40 to Eno River, ROW 2026 and construction 2029.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 12, 2021, 06:09:43 PM
Relative to the Us 15/501 freeway south of I-85: I've lived in this part of Durham for 33 years, and for essentially all of that time there has been a plan to extend the freeway south another mile+ by building an interchange at Garrett Road. The Toyota dealership there was set back to allow room for the SB exit ramp. The project is always in the STIP but never funded. Meanwhile, Southwest Durham Road was built without an interchange and an explosion of development was allowed in that area, making it unworkable to extend the freeway to I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 12, 2021, 06:25:15 PM
Final paving starting for Aviation Parkway/I-40 interchange project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-12-final-paving-aviation-pkwy.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-12-final-paving-aviation-pkwy.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 12, 2021, 06:57:42 PM
Relative to the Us 15/501 freeway south of I-85: I've lived in this part of Durham for 33 years, and for essentially all of that time there has been a plan to extend the freeway south another mile+ by building an interchange at Garrett Road. The Toyota dealership there was set back to allow room for the SB exit ramp. The project is always in the STIP but never funded. Meanwhile, Southwest Durham Road was built without an interchange and an explosion of development was allowed in that area, making it unworkable to extend the freeway to I-40.

The 2020-29 STIP says construction 2023 for the Garrett Rd interchange
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 12, 2021, 08:08:25 PM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I just cannot believe that this stretch of 85 has been neglected for so long, while other worthless projects around the state get priority. To me, the entire facility in the county looks like its still in original form.
Both I-85 and I-40 east of the split need to be widened to 6 lanes. There's currently a project planned for I-40, though I'm not sure for I-85. I-40 seems to be the higher priority, reasonable so, it has about 20,000 more AADT. But honestly, both roads should've been expanded 20 years ago and I-40 should've been built with 6 lanes when it was originally constructed in the 80s.

The US-15 / 501 freeway south of I-85 also needs a complete reconstruction and widening, and reasonably extended south by upgrading the existing arterial to I-40.

There is good news for the I-40 segment (I-3306A) as it's now scheduled to be let as a design-build project this August (yes, 2021, this year, FINALLY).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 12, 2021, 09:20:46 PM
There is good news for the I-40 segment (I-3306A) as it's now scheduled to be let as a design-build project this August (yes, 2021, this year, FINALLY).
That's welcoming news, I had thought that project was pushed off. This would complete the last 4 lane gap between Raleigh and Greensboro and Charlotte.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 12, 2021, 09:44:53 PM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion. https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I just cannot believe that this stretch of 85 has been neglected for so long, while other worthless projects around the state get priority. To me, the entire facility in the county looks like its still in original form.

It is on the 2020-29 STIP.  The current status is ROW in 2029 and construction in "post year" (which means after 2029).

Upgrading the NC 86 interchange is ROW 2027 and Construction 2029
Upgrading the old NC 86 interchange is ROW 2025 and construction 2028.  This is also on the STIP to widen Old NC 86 from I-40 to Eno River, ROW 2026 and construction 2029.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx

It is there, but is only calling for pavement rehabilitation...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 13, 2021, 11:33:39 AM
I've been doing some research on I-85 through Orange county, specifically looking for any hints of widening in the near future. I found one article from 2004 that quotes NCDOT as having the project in development. The plan was to expand to 6 lanes the section from the split with I-40 to the Durham county line, where the 6-lane currently ends. What ever happened to this project? 17 years later and nothing has moved forward. This section is in desperate need of improvements. The interchanges at NC 86 and Churton St are woefully undersized and not in good shape.

This section of I-85 has been on and off the Top 5 list statewide since I moved here in 2000.  At one time, NCDOT delayed its scheduled repaving for a couple of years assuming the work was going to start by then (it didn't).  More recently, NCDOT contracted out the survey work along this entire section.  Before it was completed, survey work along I-40 in Orange County started and I'm not sure if the I-85 corridor ever got completed.

The merge area from 86 to 85 south is dangerously short, in my opinion.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0592646,-79.0854366,3a,23.2y,256.38h,86.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sruIVxxWG8rkJVUE2nCTGoA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

My high school aged son has to get on I-85 on this onramp when coming home from school.  He is an excellent and careful driver.  He got squeezed between two semis merging one day and has been scared ever since (he threaded the needle perfectly).  He hasn't driven much since.  Sometime last Fall, I picked him up and had him drive home and the same thing happened.  Letter perfect merge.  Most folks on I-85 southbound know this one is tricky and try to help the merging traffic.  Not so at the other on-ramps around here.

The bridges for five underpasses in this section (this one is for the North Carolina Rail Road) have no room for error after the lanes were widened many years ago.  NCDOT is constantly shutting down lanes to replace the cement railings that get smacked.  Before COVID, we were getting about once accident on a bridge during rush hour almost once a month.

Oh, while you are looking at this view check out the ancient tubular pillars for that BGS.  There are two BGS and another sign heading northbound that still have original foundations for the tubular pillars.  But this one does not appear to be original pillars.  It looks like they've taken several sets of pillars and welded them together end-to-end with the base up.  Then they mounted the base of another set pillars on top of the lower pillars.  I've been meaning to post this one forever, but I haven't had a chance to get the camera out.  [Reposting to a more appropriate thread].

At the very least, the interchange with 86 needs to be brought up to modern standards. The south side is ready for full expansion.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0557731,-79.0800755,3a,55.1y,336.53h,85.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU1hR8Z0gW1jG-2RFdudI8A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

And this is the location of the four-headed left turn signal that was converted into a FYLA.  I had mistakenly posted this about the traffic signal on the other side of the I-85 intersection.  It took me a month to realize that the one I remember was actually here at Hampton Pointe.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 13, 2021, 03:46:00 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 14, 2021, 09:30:06 AM

It is there, but is only calling for pavement rehabilitation...

Both widening and pavement rehab are on it separately.  See pdf page 109 here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf

The widening is project I0305 and the rehab is I5941.  Rehab is scheduled for construction starting 2025
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 14, 2021, 05:01:46 PM
When looking at the I-77 express lanes,

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5123107,-80.8655784,3a,84.1y,8.24h,86.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE9xDsemblWHbQeZnZWPtOg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Why can't they just add another free lane so it can be 3-1-1-3? Or how about take out the grass mound and just build long bridges. Traffic is super bad in this area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 15, 2021, 10:43:18 AM
The bridges for five underpasses in this section (this one is for the North Carolina Rail Road) have no room for error after the lanes were widened many years ago.  NCDOT is constantly shutting down lanes to replace the cement railings that get smacked.  Before COVID, we were getting about once accident on a bridge during rush hour almost once a month.

Nasty truck turnover at the Orange Grove Road overpass (the westernmost bridge on I-85 before the I-40 merge).  Looks like this wreck happened going against rush hour, but it came across into oncoming rush hour traffic.  Going to be a mess in Hillsborough today.
https://www.wral.com/truck-strikes-bridge-overturns-on-i-85-in-hillsborough/19576543/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-strikes-bridge-overturns-on-i-85-in-hillsborough/19576543/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on March 15, 2021, 07:21:52 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 15, 2021, 08:03:56 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
I see that but i'm asking does this interchange need to be redesigned because of the short weaving distances.

And I assume I-40 used to go on the Durham freeway?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2021, 09:12:23 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
I see that but i'm asking does this interchange need to be redesigned because of the short weaving distances.

And I assume I-40 used to go on the Durham freeway?

I-40 never used the Durham Freeway.  It was a discontinuous route until the freeway was extended west around Durham starting in the late 1980s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 15, 2021, 09:31:04 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
I see that but i'm asking does this interchange need to be redesigned because of the short weaving distances.

And I assume I-40 used to go on the Durham freeway?

I-40 never used the Durham Freeway.  It was a discontinuous route until the freeway was extended west around Durham starting in the late 1980s.
source (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html)

(http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/1970-i40-rtpa.jpg)

Image, which happens to not work, Alternative 3 would have been done. This is what the website said

Quote
Alternative 3: The original I-40 proposal following I-85 North to NC 147 (Exit 172) and following NC 147 to present day I-40 with eliminated interchanges and extra lanes.

Alternative 4 uses the east end connector (which is not even done yet, but i think it looks stupid if they have done it that way so i'm glad they didn't).

Looking at this, Alternative 1 was chosen.

the PDF file won't download for some unknown reason.

But I know how many are against building freeways so close to downtown. I've seen a website saying "Should the Durham Freeway be demolished"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 15, 2021, 10:00:58 PM
Interestingly enough, the last segment of the NC-147 Durham Freeway between US-501 and I-85 wasn't completed until February 2001.

Most of the road through the Downtown area and down to present-day I-40 was constructed in the early 1970s, with a portion east of US-501 connecting to the 70s freeway being built in the early 1990s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2021, 10:10:17 PM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
I see that but i'm asking does this interchange need to be redesigned because of the short weaving distances.

And I assume I-40 used to go on the Durham freeway?

I-40 never used the Durham Freeway.  It was a discontinuous route until the freeway was extended west around Durham starting in the late 1980s.
source (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html)

(http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/1970-i40-rtpa.jpg)

Image, which happens to not work, Alternative 3 would have been done. This is what the website said

Quote
Alternative 3: The original I-40 proposal following I-85 North to NC 147 (Exit 172) and following NC 147 to present day I-40 with eliminated interchanges and extra lanes.

Alternative 4 uses the east end connector (which is not even done yet, but i think it looks stupid if they have done it that way so i'm glad they didn't).

Looking at this, Alternative 1 was chosen.

the PDF file won't download for some unknown reason.

But I know how many are against building freeways so close to downtown. I've seen a website saying "Should the Durham Freeway be demolished"?

So, no, I-40 never actually used the Durham Freeway...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 16, 2021, 12:01:43 AM
And this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9007702,-78.8748559,16.33z) interchange would need work done to it too?

By the way, this (https://letsgetmoving.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/final-draft-ppt-I-40p-Au1120.pd) document has recent images about the new I-40 widening.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8996145,-78.8758435,3a,75y,317.22h,78.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suMEwZEs-m7kukgicU3gvNw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
This was originally an At grade intersection. Now its a full onramp.
I see that but i'm asking does this interchange need to be redesigned because of the short weaving distances.

And I assume I-40 used to go on the Durham freeway?

I-40 never used the Durham Freeway.  It was a discontinuous route until the freeway was extended west around Durham starting in the late 1980s.
source (http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/i40.html)

(http://www.gribblenation.com/ncpics/history/1970-i40-rtpa.jpg)

Image, which happens to not work, Alternative 3 would have been done. This is what the website said

Quote
Alternative 3: The original I-40 proposal following I-85 North to NC 147 (Exit 172) and following NC 147 to present day I-40 with eliminated interchanges and extra lanes.

Alternative 4 uses the east end connector (which is not even done yet, but i think it looks stupid if they have done it that way so i'm glad they didn't).

Looking at this, Alternative 1 was chosen.

the PDF file won't download for some unknown reason.

But I know how many are against building freeways so close to downtown. I've seen a website saying "Should the Durham Freeway be demolished"?

So, no, I-40 never actually used the Durham Freeway...
I'm guessing that was the original plan but they wanted to bypass it cause it bisects the city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 17, 2021, 12:55:24 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 17, 2021, 02:46:49 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 03:21:46 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 17, 2021, 03:31:41 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 03:47:13 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
I did read it and that's great. Just have a smoother ride going to the OBX.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 17, 2021, 04:00:22 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
I did read it and that's great. Just have a smoother ride going to the OBX.

Any freeway between Williamston and east of Plymouth will have to be new terrain to the south of existing alignments.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 17, 2021, 04:04:55 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?

I used to use the NC 16 freeway between Charlotte and NC 150 all the time. I was never a fan of the current setup at Optimist Club and St James Ch. The configuration of these two intersections prohibits the cross street traffic from going straight across the highway. One must turn right, go down 16 a bit, U-turn, then go back and turn right... all just to continue straight. Why don't they just bridge over 16, and make the entrance/exit ramps RIRO? This still eliminates at-grade crossings over 16, and through traffic on the cross street isn't wildly inconvenienced.

NC DOT has repeated this setup in other places around the state, and them adding a signal to NC 16/Optimist Club is just a roundabout way of admitting its a flawed design from the start.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 04:15:34 PM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
I did read it and that's great. Just have a smoother ride going to the OBX.

Any freeway between Williamston and east of Plymouth will have to be new terrain to the south of existing alignments.
http://prntscr.com/10ogvlg

And i hope to see a perfect interchange at the future I-87 corridor and US-17.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on March 17, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?

I used to use the NC 16 freeway between Charlotte and NC 150 all the time. I was never a fan of the current setup at Optimist Club and St James Ch. The configuration of these two intersections prohibits the cross street traffic from going straight across the highway. One must turn right, go down 16 a bit, U-turn, then go back and turn right... all just to continue straight. Why don't they just bridge over 16, and make the entrance/exit ramps RIRO? This still eliminates at-grade crossings over 16, and through traffic on the cross street isn't wildly inconvenienced.

NC DOT has repeated this setup in other places around the state, and them adding a signal to NC 16/Optimist Club is just a roundabout way of admitting its a flawed design from the start.
Ugh. Slowing down traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 17, 2021, 06:23:14 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?

I used to use the NC 16 freeway between Charlotte and NC 150 all the time. I was never a fan of the current setup at Optimist Club and St James Ch. The configuration of these two intersections prohibits the cross street traffic from going straight across the highway. One must turn right, go down 16 a bit, U-turn, then go back and turn right... all just to continue straight. Why don't they just bridge over 16, and make the entrance/exit ramps RIRO? This still eliminates at-grade crossings over 16, and through traffic on the cross street isn't wildly inconvenienced.

NC DOT has repeated this setup in other places around the state, and them adding a signal to NC 16/Optimist Club is just a roundabout way of admitting its a flawed design from the start.

This is known as the NC Superstreet layout, and it's main goals are to prioritize throughput of the main road and reduce the number of phases of any necessary traffic signal.

This was invented by NCDOT and is being implemented in Virginia also.

It's in the same category as Michigan Lefts and Jersey Jughandles which eliminate time spent at signals waiting for protected lefts, etc.

The NC Superstreet makes certain turns require two actions that don't hold up the bulk of the traffic on the main road. I can see where minor, insignificant streets shouldn't make the big, important thoroughfare come to a stop for minutes at a time.....

but at the same time this is a unique way of reducing wait times at signalized intersections. Michigan lefts are a good way of eliminating protected left phases too. Jersey jugnadles requires more land and pavement but are successful too.

US401 from Raleigh to Louisburg is being rebuilt as a 4-lane divided highway but is also a superstreet design. When you see a bulb of shoulder pavement beyond an intersection it is to accommodate u-turns for people to make turns to another road without a phase for that specific maneuver.

All in all they are a good thing because of less time waiting at signals. At least the DOT is out there trying to help you, no such activity in Georiga's DOT although they have adopted Div. diamonds redos.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 17, 2021, 06:25:03 PM
Please join me in contacting NCDOT asking them to clean up trash along Raleigh's interstates, worst in the country for litter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 17, 2021, 07:18:37 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?

I used to use the NC 16 freeway between Charlotte and NC 150 all the time. I was never a fan of the current setup at Optimist Club and St James Ch. The configuration of these two intersections prohibits the cross street traffic from going straight across the highway. One must turn right, go down 16 a bit, U-turn, then go back and turn right... all just to continue straight. Why don't they just bridge over 16, and make the entrance/exit ramps RIRO? This still eliminates at-grade crossings over 16, and through traffic on the cross street isn't wildly inconvenienced.

NC DOT has repeated this setup in other places around the state, and them adding a signal to NC 16/Optimist Club is just a roundabout way of admitting its a flawed design from the start.

This is known as the NC Superstreet layout, and it's main goals are to prioritize throughput of the main road and reduce the number of phases of any necessary traffic signal.

This was invented by NCDOT and is being implemented in Virginia also.

It's in the same category as Michigan Lefts and Jersey Jughandles which eliminate time spent at signals waiting for protected lefts, etc.

The NC Superstreet makes certain turns require two actions that don't hold up the bulk of the traffic on the main road. I can see where minor, insignificant streets shouldn't make the big, important thoroughfare come to a stop for minutes at a time.....

but at the same time this is a unique way of reducing wait times at signalized intersections. Michigan lefts are a good way of eliminating protected left phases too. Jersey jugnadles requires more land and pavement but are successful too.

US401 from Raleigh to Louisburg is being rebuilt as a 4-lane divided highway but is also a superstreet design. When you see a bulb of shoulder pavement beyond an intersection it is to accommodate u-turns for people to make turns to another road without a phase for that specific maneuver.

All in all they are a good thing because of less time waiting at signals. At least the DOT is out there trying to help you, no such activity in Georiga's DOT although they have adopted Div. diamonds redos.
If they had done it properly, the two intersections on the NC-16 expressway would be interchanges or grade separations. Every other crossroad was grade separated, creating a mostly freeway design, except those two. Now they're coming back to fix one mistake, still the other to be determined.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 17, 2021, 07:33:55 PM
Superstreets come in handy, but I prefer interchanges. People hate stopping. They should build an interchange. Make it a full freeway :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 17, 2021, 07:58:31 PM
Lincoln County Intersection Getting a Traffic Signal (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-lincoln-county-intersection.aspx)
Quote
DENVER — A traffic signal and other improvements are coming to the intersection of N.C. 16 & Optimist Club Road in Lincoln County.

The N.C. Department of Transportation recently awarded a contract to LMJ Pavement Marking, LLC to signalize the intersection, add new pavement markings and install warning devices to alert motorists traveling on N.C. 16 of the signals ahead. As part of the project, NCDOT will reduce the speed limit from the current 60 mph to 55 mph.

Work can begin as early as April 15 and is estimated to take four months to complete. To minimize traffic impacts, the contractor will not reduce lanes during commuter times, holidays and special events.

Residents and local officials had asked NCDOT to evaluate the safety of this location, which is a reduced-conflict intersection designed to improve safety and reduce the risk of serious crashes. NCDOT recommended the installation of a traffic signal, in part because significantly more people are traveling through this intersection since N.C. 16 was widened in 2011.

Funding for the $281,796 signalization project is coming primarily from a program called High-Impact/Low Cost, a funding source established in 2017 by the General Assembly to provide funds to complete low-cost projects with high impacts to the transportation system, including intersection improvement projects, minor widening projects and operational improvement projects.

Ultimately, NCDOT plans to construct an interchange at this location under State Transportation Improvement Project U-6134. Planning and design work is just getting underway for the interchange project, with right-of-way acquisition currently scheduled to begin in 2022 and construction scheduled to follow starting in 2024.
The entire 17-mile expressway between Killian Crossroads and Lucia was constructed on new location about 13 years ago, built to full freeway standards with the exception of two at-grade intersections (Optimist Club Rd and St. James Church Rd), one of which will now be getting a traffic signal. Not sure why these two intersections were not grade separated from the beginning... hopefully this interchange can get constructed along with another grade separation funded at St. James Church Rd by the end of the decade, finally creating a full freeway corridor that can posted up to 65 mph (or all the way to 70 mph) with no interruption. The southern portion is already posted at 65 mph, though the northern half is restricted to 60 mph due to those two intersections, thanks to artificial classification speed laws.

Also... Google Maps now classifies the at-grade portion of NC-16 south of Lucia to I-485 as a freeway facility, but has the actual freeway / limited access portion north of there marked as a surface route...?

I used to use the NC 16 freeway between Charlotte and NC 150 all the time. I was never a fan of the current setup at Optimist Club and St James Ch. The configuration of these two intersections prohibits the cross street traffic from going straight across the highway. One must turn right, go down 16 a bit, U-turn, then go back and turn right... all just to continue straight. Why don't they just bridge over 16, and make the entrance/exit ramps RIRO? This still eliminates at-grade crossings over 16, and through traffic on the cross street isn't wildly inconvenienced.

NC DOT has repeated this setup in other places around the state, and them adding a signal to NC 16/Optimist Club is just a roundabout way of admitting its a flawed design from the start.

This is known as the NC Superstreet layout, and it's main goals are to prioritize throughput of the main road and reduce the number of phases of any necessary traffic signal.

This was invented by NCDOT and is being implemented in Virginia also.

It's in the same category as Michigan Lefts and Jersey Jughandles which eliminate time spent at signals waiting for protected lefts, etc.

The NC Superstreet makes certain turns require two actions that don't hold up the bulk of the traffic on the main road. I can see where minor, insignificant streets shouldn't make the big, important thoroughfare come to a stop for minutes at a time.....

but at the same time this is a unique way of reducing wait times at signalized intersections. Michigan lefts are a good way of eliminating protected left phases too. Jersey jugnadles requires more land and pavement but are successful too.

US401 from Raleigh to Louisburg is being rebuilt as a 4-lane divided highway but is also a superstreet design. When you see a bulb of shoulder pavement beyond an intersection it is to accommodate u-turns for people to make turns to another road without a phase for that specific maneuver.

All in all they are a good thing because of less time waiting at signals. At least the DOT is out there trying to help you, no such activity in Georiga's DOT although they have adopted Div. diamonds redos.

One of these signalized superstreet intersections recently appeared on US 64 near Jordan Lake. The thing is, they DO bring the major road to a stop in order to let like one or two cars make a U-turn. Last week was my first time going through this intersection with the signals working, and I was appalled at how long I was sitting stopped on 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on March 18, 2021, 10:03:43 AM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
I did read it and that's great. Just have a smoother ride going to the OBX.

Any freeway between Williamston and east of Plymouth will have to be new terrain to the south of existing alignments.

I doubt that US 64 will ever be upgraded to a freeway between Williamston and Plymouth.  There is still a 2 lane section from Columbia to Manteo that needs to be upgraded to 4 lanes.  This section is about 25 miles and only half of it is on the current STIP.

From Columbia to East Lake has ROW in 2028 and construction is post 2029.

Nothing is on the current STIP from East Lake to US 264 (near Manteo) where the road goes to 4 lanes.

2 major reasons for this tough love from NCDOT: US 64 goes thru a National Wildlife Refuge (Alligator River) and Marc Basnight (former State Senator from Dare County) is no longer living.  US 64 used to be known as "Marc Basnight's driveway" he was the former leader of the State Senate and would regularly commute from OBX to Raleigh for legislative sessions.  Most if not all of the US 64 improvements that were made from the 1970's to the mid-2000's were because of him.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 18, 2021, 10:43:04 AM

I doubt that US 64 will ever be upgraded to a freeway between Williamston and Plymouth.  There is still a 2 lane section from Columbia to Manteo that needs to be upgraded to 4 lanes.  This section is about 25 miles and only half of it is on the current STIP.

From Columbia to East Lake has ROW in 2028 and construction is post 2029.

Nothing is on the current STIP from East Lake to US 264 (near Manteo) where the road goes to 4 lanes.

2 major reasons for this tough love from NCDOT: US 64 goes thru a National Wildlife Refuge (Alligator River) and Marc Basnight (former State Senator from Dare County) is no longer living.  US 64 used to be known as "Marc Basnight's driveway" he was the former leader of the State Senate and would regularly commute from OBX to Raleigh for legislative sessions.  Most if not all of the US 64 improvements that were made from the 1970's to the mid-2000's were because of him.

Something that I wish NCDOT would begin exploring for this route (and others) is a sort of "hybrid" three-lane approach using alternating passing lanes. Basically, every few miles you get a dedicated mile or two passing area before it switches back to two lanes or passing for the other direction. This would prevent the long queuing behind a single slow car for endless miles (like 64 east of Columbia) and offer a pretty decent level of service without the costs and impacts of a major widening. With rising costs for right-of-way and construction, NCDOT can't continue with the 4-lane and a median approach as the only option to upgrade rural highways with very little traffic. US 221 and US 64 from Rutherfordton to Marion and Morganton, respectively, are a couple of other examples. They took the 4-lanes and median approach south of US 74 on US 221, and it's expensive overkill for that route. NC 49 between Charlotte and Asheboro is another good candidate.

However, with all of the storms in recent years, it's surprising the 64 widening east of Columbia hasn't been moved up. All it will take is a major hurricane in the summer and a mass evacuation from the Outer Banks at the height of tourist season before everyone is screaming why this wasn't completed decades ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 11:37:43 AM
A contract has been awarded for improvements to US-64 in Washington & Tyrrell counties. Work can start on June 1 and is expected to be finished by September 30, 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-03-16-us-64-improvements.aspx)
Can a freeway be built and bypass Jamesville and Plymouth?
The project in question is a resurfacing project along two segments of the existing freeway between Columbia and Plymouth...
I did read it and that's great. Just have a smoother ride going to the OBX.

Any freeway between Williamston and east of Plymouth will have to be new terrain to the south of existing alignments.

I doubt that US 64 will ever be upgraded to a freeway between Williamston and Plymouth.  There is still a 2 lane section from Columbia to Manteo that needs to be upgraded to 4 lanes.  This section is about 25 miles and only half of it is on the current STIP.

From Columbia to East Lake has ROW in 2028 and construction is post 2029.

Nothing is on the current STIP from East Lake to US 264 (near Manteo) where the road goes to 4 lanes.

2 major reasons for this tough love from NCDOT: US 64 goes thru a National Wildlife Refuge (Alligator River) and Marc Basnight (former State Senator from Dare County) is no longer living.  US 64 used to be known as "Marc Basnight's driveway" he was the former leader of the State Senate and would regularly commute from OBX to Raleigh for legislative sessions.  Most if not all of the US 64 improvements that were made from the 1970's to the mid-2000's were because of him.
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.

Then they should do this project first (which I'm sure they will). It's currently unfunded though. I wish they added the Columbia bypass in there. And taking it all the way to Manns Harbor, a freeway is possible, but definitely a pain in the ass to do.

I say continue the freeway in Tyrrell County (going over the Alligator river bridge) and make it an expressway in Dare County.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 12:35:07 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 12:41:11 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
And continuing the freeway until to East lake? There has been many complaints on the alligator river bridge. It's old and it should be replaced soon
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 12:58:47 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
And continuing the freeway until to East lake? There has been many complaints on the alligator river bridge. It's old and it should be replaced soon
I believe the plans would have it be replaced with a new four lane bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 01:00:01 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
And continuing the freeway until to East lake? There has been many complaints on the alligator river bridge. It's old and it should be replaced soon
I believe the plans would have it be replaced with a new four lane bridge.
Yes, similar to the one that US-17 has over the Chowan River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 18, 2021, 01:03:56 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
And continuing the freeway until to East lake? There has been many complaints on the alligator river bridge. It's old and it should be replaced soon
I believe the plans would have it be replaced with a new four lane bridge.
Yes, similar to the one that US-17 has over the Chowan River.
Yes, except with a proper 10 foot right shoulder.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Documents/Preferred%20Alternative%20Maps%20and%20Typical%20Sections.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2021, 01:18:36 PM
Why? Williamston and Plymouth are both larger than Roper and Criswell and I think they have a reasonable candidate for a freeway.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx#:~:text=Project%20Overview,end%20of%20its%20service%20life.
US-64 is already four lanes between Williamston and Columbia. The higher priority is widening the portion that's still 2 lanes to 4 lanes to the Outer Banks. Perhaps at some point in the future, once those issues are addressed, they can shift focus at constructing bypasses for Columbia and Plymouth. The last part that would ever be touched would be Plymouth to Williamston as it's already expressway with only a few signals.
And continuing the freeway until to East lake? There has been many complaints on the alligator river bridge. It's old and it should be replaced soon
I believe the plans would have it be replaced with a new four lane bridge.
Yes, similar to the one that US-17 has over the Chowan River.
Yes, except with a proper 10 foot right shoulder.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Documents/Preferred%20Alternative%20Maps%20and%20Typical%20Sections.pdf
Speaking of that, should the Chowan River bridge shoulders be widened to 10 feet so it can meet interstate standards when I-87 is there?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 04:57:26 PM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 19, 2021, 06:10:34 PM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.

North Carolina   New Hanover, Pender, Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow, Halifax, Edgecombe, Nash, Wilson, Franklin, Wake, Johnston   03/2021 - 12/2021

https://www.google.com/streetview/explore/#sv-headed

For imagery, you can try requesting an imagery refresh in Google Earth using the methods described in the thread below. I tried it for Asheville and other portions of WNC that had 4-year-old imagery (2015), and sure enough some new imagery (2019) showed up a few weeks later. Did the same thing for Shelby and the bypass. Keep in mind that the imagery typically needs to be at least two or three years old before it will be refreshed, particularly for rural areas.

https://support.google.com/earth/thread/5416553?hl=en

The State of North Carolina acquires high-resolution (0.5 ft) orthoimagery on a four-year cycle. The imagery collected in 2020 was for the coastal counties. It is available in various GIS apps/viewers, and I think you can bring it into Google Earth (did it once, can't remember how off the top of my head).

https://nconemap.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3e09585dabca41c090d363a56a0d053e

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2021, 06:20:59 PM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.

North Carolina   New Hanover, Pender, Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow, Halifax, Edgecombe, Nash, Wilson, Franklin, Wake, Johnston   03/2021 - 12/2021

https://www.google.com/streetview/explore/#sv-headed

For imagery, you can try requesting an imagery refresh in Google Earth using the methods described in the thread below. I tried it for Asheville and other portions of WNC that had 4-year-old imagery (2015), and sure enough some new imagery (2019) showed up a few weeks later. Did the same thing for Shelby and the bypass. Keep in mind that the imagery typically needs to be at least two or three years old before it will be refreshed, particularly for rural areas.

https://support.google.com/earth/thread/5416553?hl=en

The State of North Carolina acquires high-resolution (0.5 ft) orthoimagery on a four-year cycle. The imagery collected in 2020 was for the coastal counties. It is available in various GIS apps/viewers, and I think you can bring it into Google Earth (did it once, can't remember how off the top of my head).

https://nconemap.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=3e09585dabca41c090d363a56a0d053e
Well they should do something about it. The new SW bypass has come a long way and other businesses. As well as the 540 beltline and Greensboro urban loop.

This is an error. It says you can turn here but it's cutoff.

http://prntscr.com/10qd4e1
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: HazMatt on March 20, 2021, 04:31:47 PM
..clip..
One of these signalized superstreet intersections recently appeared on US 64 near Jordan Lake. The thing is, they DO bring the major road to a stop in order to let like one or two cars make a U-turn. Last week was my first time going through this intersection with the signals working, and I was appalled at how long I was sitting stopped on 64.

I like the recent intersection in Holly Springs with the 55 Bypass and Ting Park.  Same superstreet design, but with a flashing yellow U-turn that will only stop traffic if cars are sitting for a couple minutes.  The intersections further south at Target/etc. are frustrating as you always have to wait at a red.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 20, 2021, 04:41:55 PM
..clip..
One of these signalized superstreet intersections recently appeared on US 64 near Jordan Lake. The thing is, they DO bring the major road to a stop in order to let like one or two cars make a U-turn. Last week was my first time going through this intersection with the signals working, and I was appalled at how long I was sitting stopped on 64.

I like the recent intersection in Holly Springs with the 55 Bypass and Ting Park.  Same superstreet design, but with a flashing yellow U-turn that will only stop traffic if cars are sitting for a couple minutes.  The intersections further south at Target/etc. are frustrating as you always have to wait at a red.
I thought they don't have as many cycles though.

That's why we need to implement quadrants and those roadways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2021, 03:27:28 PM
Speaking of that, should the Chowan River bridge shoulders be widened to 10 feet so it can meet interstate standards when I-87 is there?
Technically, “long bridges”  are permitted to have a reduced 4 foot right shoulder, which the Chowan River bridge does, and according to preliminary drawings, that is the plan, though I still believe they should widen the structure to accommodate breakdown lanes at some point.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 21, 2021, 04:42:40 PM
Speaking of that, should the Chowan River bridge shoulders be widened to 10 feet so it can meet interstate standards when I-87 is there?
Technically, “long bridges”  are permitted to have a reduced 4 foot right shoulder, which the Chowan River bridge does, and according to preliminary drawings, that is the plan, though I still believe they should widen the structure to accommodate breakdown lanes at some point.
How about the bridges that I-587 will go on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on March 25, 2021, 11:53:14 AM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.
I was just talking about this not too long ago.
In Syracuse, we have imagery as late as November 2020.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Take a gander over at the Boulevard, near downtown.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on March 25, 2021, 05:41:35 PM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.
I was just talking about this not too long ago.
In Syracuse, we have imagery as late as November 2020.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Take a gander over at the Boulevard, near downtown.
Heh.  First time since I've lived in the area that someone has referred to Erie Boulevard as just the Boulevard. :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 06:26:11 PM
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ac9d834516024a479de8fe6d56dc1335

It's funny how nothing is going on in Pitt County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 26, 2021, 07:10:24 PM
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ac9d834516024a479de8fe6d56dc1335

It's funny how nothing is going on in Pitt County.

You just had a freeway bypass completed and another freeway upgraded to interstate standards.  What's so funny about being in the same position as about 20 other counties?

Also, Pitt County has stuff in the STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 26, 2021, 07:13:39 PM
https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=ac9d834516024a479de8fe6d56dc1335

It's funny how nothing is going on in Pitt County.

You just had a freeway bypass completed and another freeway upgraded to interstate standards.  What's so funny about being in the same position as about 20 other counties?

Also, Pitt County has stuff in the STIP - https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Pages/State-Transportation-Improvement-Program.aspx
Just have construction on buildings and businesses I guess? There happens to be some budgeting issues due to COVID-19 as well.

And it has all been pushed back to 2025.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 27, 2021, 12:54:35 AM
They should fix this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4335435,-80.66035,3a,75y,64.39h,101.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scKsv2n2TeZS6N4oTU4rh-A!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) overhead sign. Since the highway has been widened It may confuse people cause they don't know where they will exit at. That would also require to move the sign back. No offense, but I think the sign should be moved back.

It should look like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6874985,-77.9669253,3a,15y,155.37h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx_xHL_8mFmQ2JU26jx51fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) Goldsboro Kenly sign with a green and a yellow arrow.

Green says you can keep straight or use this lane to exit.

Yellow means EXIT ONLY.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on March 27, 2021, 06:05:56 AM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.
I was just talking about this not too long ago.
In Syracuse, we have imagery as late as November 2020.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Take a gander over at the Boulevard, near downtown.
Heh.  First time since I've lived in the area that someone has referred to Erie Boulevard as just the Boulevard. :D
That's what we call it!

KFMAWI

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2021, 07:36:57 AM
When will we get 2020 or 2021 street view in this state? Other states have them and we don't...

That's from Google.

I'm asking about Google Earth imagery too.
I was just talking about this not too long ago.
In Syracuse, we have imagery as late as November 2020.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0522528,-76.1816411,3a,75y,246.73h,94.17t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjfERcjTiXDXMRE4vpIzH5w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D117.92255%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Take a gander over at the Boulevard, near downtown.
Heh.  First time since I've lived in the area that someone has referred to Erie Boulevard as just the Boulevard. :D
That's what we call it!

KFMAWI
Who's "we"? :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 27, 2021, 05:56:59 PM
Here's a fairly recent and good quality video (not mine) showing the I-26 widening from Hendersonville to Asheville. There's a lot of slope cuts, retaining walls and bridges on these two projects.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 28, 2021, 12:38:01 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2021, 02:07:13 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
What segment are you referring to?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 28, 2021, 02:46:22 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
What segment are you referring to?
Eastern leg. The part that just opened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2021, 06:02:29 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
What segment are you referring to?
Eastern leg. The part that just opened.
Odd they’d post it at 60 mph considering it’s a limited access highway and has a design speed of 70 mph. The western portion that opened a few years back is posted at 65 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 28, 2021, 07:17:54 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
What segment are you referring to?
Eastern leg. The part that just opened.
Odd they’d post it at 60 mph considering it’s a limited access highway and has a design speed of 70 mph. The western portion that opened a few years back is posted at 65 mph.
I think they are waiting to upgrade the middle part in between first.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2021, 10:25:37 PM
Is there any reasons why the eastern leg of the CF Harvey parkway speed limit is posted at 60 mph and not 65 or 70? Is it cause the middle part is not a freeway? :hmmm:
What segment are you referring to?
Eastern leg. The part that just opened.
Odd they’d post it at 60 mph considering it’s a limited access highway and has a design speed of 70 mph. The western portion that opened a few years back is posted at 65 mph.
I think they are waiting to upgrade the middle part in between first.
I can’t see that as logical, given there’s no plans to upgrade the middle segment, and the fact that the western leg is posted at 65 mph despite not connecting to any freeways on either end.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 29, 2021, 02:59:20 PM
Speed limit on Marc Basnight Bridge will likely increase to 55 mph before the summer (https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/speed-limit-on-marc-basnight-bridge-will-likely-increase-to-55-mph-before-the-summer/)
Quote
The speed limit on the Marc Basnight Bridge across Oregon Inlet will likely increase from 45 mph to 55 mph before the summer season arrives, per an update from N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) spokesperson Tim Hass.

The speed limit on the bridge has been 45 mph since first opening to the public on February 25, 2019, and before that, the speed limit was reduced on the old Bonner Bridge as construction activities were underway. In both cases, the speed limit was reduced so that NCDOT activities could be conducted in a safer environment.

“We are still performing some minor work on the interior of the bridge, which means there are times that we need to have vehicles and staff on the bridge surface itself,”  stated Hass. “The lower speed limit just means better safety for them.”

In addition, there are a few mandatory steps that must be taken in order to raise the speed limit permanently. “It’s not just a matter of changing the signage,”  stated Hass. “The 45 mph speed limit actually started back on the old (Bonner) Bridge when construction started on the new (Basnight) Bridge. Once we’re ready to go to 55, there’s a process that our traffic engineer has to go through to officially change the speed limits back.”

Meanwhile, demolition of the former Bonner Bridge has entered its final stages and was 95% complete as of mid-February, 2021.

About 1,000 feet of the old bridge was left intact on the northern end of the project to serve as a public walkway and fishing pier, and the site is estimated to open to the public sometime this summer.

For more information on local traffic, including real-time travel information, visit DriveNC.gov or follow NCDOT on social media.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sernum on March 29, 2021, 05:34:45 PM
whatever happened to rea rd. extension? :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on March 30, 2021, 06:37:26 AM
whatever happened to rea rd. extension? :confused:
Suspended due to COVID. In the preliminary engineering phase.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 30, 2021, 04:53:36 PM
They should fix this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4335435,-80.66035,3a,75y,64.39h,101.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scKsv2n2TeZS6N4oTU4rh-A!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) overhead sign. Since the highway has been widened It may confuse people cause they don't know where they will exit at. That would also require to move the sign back. No offense, but I think the sign should be moved back.

It should look like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6874985,-77.9669253,3a,15y,155.37h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx_xHL_8mFmQ2JU26jx51fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) Goldsboro Kenly sign with a green and a yellow arrow.

Green says you can keep straight or use this lane to exit.

Yellow means EXIT ONLY.



I've always hated when they use a black border on the yellow EXIT ONLY piece if it's next to green with a white border.

It makes the sign look piecemeal (sp?) or another piece slapped on top of the original sign.

I know that's the official color for the border in the UNiform manual but I see the rule broken about 50% of the time and think that continuing the white border from the green looks much more harmonious and nicer.

I'm curious also as to which states other than NC, NY, and FL spend extra to round the sign corners (cut the metal) to match the border shape. I like it, looks much better than the cheap states.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 30, 2021, 06:48:01 PM
They should fix this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4335435,-80.66035,3a,75y,64.39h,101.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scKsv2n2TeZS6N4oTU4rh-A!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) overhead sign. Since the highway has been widened It may confuse people cause they don't know where they will exit at. That would also require to move the sign back. No offense, but I think the sign should be moved back.

It should look like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6874985,-77.9669253,3a,15y,155.37h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx_xHL_8mFmQ2JU26jx51fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) Goldsboro Kenly sign with a green and a yellow arrow.

Green says you can keep straight or use this lane to exit.

Yellow means EXIT ONLY.



I've always hated when they use a black border on the yellow EXIT ONLY piece if it's next to green with a white border.

It makes the sign look piecemeal (sp?) or another piece slapped on top of the original sign.

I know that's the official color for the border in the UNiform manual but I see the rule broken about 50% of the time and think that continuing the white border from the green looks much more harmonious and nicer.

I'm curious also as to which states other than NC, NY, and FL spend extra to round the sign corners (cut the metal) to match the border shape. I like it, looks much better than the cheap states.
Nowadays, new signs WILL have those black borders. You will just have to get used to them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 30, 2021, 07:53:55 PM
How many locations have overhead signs with NO warning that a lane exits? I can think of three off the top of my head:

I-26 EB Exit 67 (https://goo.gl/maps/jdQLDK7eVfVeMoLk7)
I-40 WB Exit 27 (https://goo.gl/maps/66etE9BPo5Mt1orj6)
U.S. 17 NB to N.C. 55 (https://goo.gl/maps/fxVdxyZXrd9HntdW8)

They're all "new" lanes added for the ramp/exit, so maybe they aren't required to be signed that way? The one on I-26 at Exit 67 can be a bit of a surprise due to the hill and curve.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 30, 2021, 08:11:27 PM
How many locations have overhead signs with NO warning that a lane exits? I can think of three off the top of my head:

I-26 EB Exit 67 (https://goo.gl/maps/jdQLDK7eVfVeMoLk7)
I-40 WB Exit 27 (https://goo.gl/maps/66etE9BPo5Mt1orj6)
U.S. 17 NB to N.C. 55 (https://goo.gl/maps/fxVdxyZXrd9HntdW8)

They're all "new" lanes added for the ramp/exit, so maybe they aren't required to be signed that way? The one on I-26 at Exit 67 can be a bit of a surprise due to the hill and curve.
Yes. Contact NCDOT about it.

I'm sure they will fix it. They were imitating the old signage they used from the 70s to the mid 2000s I'm sure.

There are many in New Bern.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0969309,-77.0273202,3a,41.6y,255.67h,94.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6zD6Qc3Imuq0dQIjZqWCwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I hope this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0888624,-77.0349173,3a,18.4y,329.28h,94.1t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3h-SeM7TaC7YEcIveMPpSA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D3h-SeM7TaC7YEcIveMPpSA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D77.44218%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) one will get fixed since they started the freeway project.


And surprisingly, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2991782,-77.8120374,3a,18.1y,307.49h,98.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVrFFqWTArM10bErlyLtBwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) one does not have them?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 30, 2021, 10:07:55 PM
How many locations have overhead signs with NO warning that a lane exits? I can think of three off the top of my head:

I-26 EB Exit 67 (https://goo.gl/maps/jdQLDK7eVfVeMoLk7)
I-40 WB Exit 27 (https://goo.gl/maps/66etE9BPo5Mt1orj6)
U.S. 17 NB to N.C. 55 (https://goo.gl/maps/fxVdxyZXrd9HntdW8)

They're all "new" lanes added for the ramp/exit, so maybe they aren't required to be signed that way? The one on I-26 at Exit 67 can be a bit of a surprise due to the hill and curve.
The one at Exit 67 at least has a "Right Lane Exit Only" sign as the lane is forming. Though agreed, more clear signage should be used especially for truckers who may imply it as a climbing lane.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 31, 2021, 08:03:08 AM
Also short freeway segments tend to have lower speed limits. They will be posted 60 or 65 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on March 31, 2021, 12:20:00 PM
How many locations have overhead signs with NO warning that a lane exits? I can think of three off the top of my head:

I-26 EB Exit 67 (https://goo.gl/maps/jdQLDK7eVfVeMoLk7)
I-40 WB Exit 27 (https://goo.gl/maps/66etE9BPo5Mt1orj6)
U.S. 17 NB to N.C. 55 (https://goo.gl/maps/fxVdxyZXrd9HntdW8)

They're all "new" lanes added for the ramp/exit, so maybe they aren't required to be signed that way? The one on I-26 at Exit 67 can be a bit of a surprise due to the hill and curve.
Yes. Contact NCDOT about it.

I'm sure they will fix it. They were imitating the old signage they used from the 70s to the mid 2000s I'm sure.

The one at Exit 67 at least has a "Right Lane Exit Only" sign as the lane is forming. Though agreed, more clear signage should be used especially for truckers who may imply it as a climbing lane.

They're aware and that's how much they care lol.

There seems to be a lot of inconsistent practices across the NCDOT divisions. I sent an e-mail a while back to another division to ask a few questions regarding improvements, and the responses were more or less "no one has told me to look into that." Gee, real helpful, thanks. Seems like you have to get ahold of someone higher up in Raleigh to pass down the directives.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 31, 2021, 04:31:45 PM
There seems to be a lot of inconsistent practices across the NCDOT divisions.

Sounds about right. About two years ago, I emailed NCDOT and asked them if there was any timetable for signing the Goldsboro Bypass as I-42. I got a response from the Division 4 PE at the time, Matt Clarke, who basically said that all of US-70 would need upgraded before I-42 could be signed.

This was after NCDOT's Chief Engineer, Tim Little, told the US-70 Corridor Commission that FHWA had given it's approval to slap I-42 shields on the Goldsboro Bypass. Go figure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 31, 2021, 07:32:03 PM
Cause of this, the NC-43 widening project may get modified.

https://www.pittcountync.gov/810/NC-43-South-Land-Use-Plan

This has been posted very late, I see they would WANT to have a grade separation over the railroad track. It crosses through 2 of them though. Definitely would be an interesting project cause Rose traffic is backed up. We definitely need more 6-lane arterials in Greenville!

https://www.greenvillenc.gov/home/showdocument?id=17526
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 02, 2021, 11:17:19 PM
I hope this inerchange is temporary.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5951-public-meeting-map.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wanderer2575 on April 02, 2021, 11:40:44 PM
They should fix this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4335435,-80.66035,3a,75y,64.39h,101.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1scKsv2n2TeZS6N4oTU4rh-A!2e0!5s20191001T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) overhead sign. Since the highway has been widened It may confuse people cause they don't know where they will exit at. That would also require to move the sign back. No offense, but I think the sign should be moved back.

It should look like this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6874985,-77.9669253,3a,15y,155.37h,97.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sx_xHL_8mFmQ2JU26jx51fw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) Goldsboro Kenly sign with a green and a yellow arrow.

Green says you can keep straight or use this lane to exit.

Yellow means EXIT ONLY.

It's past the gore point, so the left lane of the exit is definitely defined as an exit-only lane at that point.

If you think it still should be signed as an option lane at the gore, that's a valid opinion.  But that's not what the MUTCD
says.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on April 07, 2021, 05:41:00 PM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 07, 2021, 07:55:42 PM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250501669.html

This states the reason. Really though?!?!??!?! I think it's time to go ahead and start working on that area now. This is why concrete freeways are so much better than asphalt ones.

Oh god, here too - http://prntscr.com/116v7u
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 07, 2021, 08:39:06 PM
Great, I get to drive past that mess in the opposite direction (thankfully).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on April 08, 2021, 08:32:27 AM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250501669.html

This states the reason. Really though?!?!??!?! I think it's time to go ahead and start working on that area now. This is why concrete freeways are so much better than asphalt ones.

Oh god, here too - http://prntscr.com/116v7u
Link ain't working. :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 08, 2021, 11:45:20 AM
The I-40 rest area near the TN state line has been reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 08, 2021, 12:04:28 PM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250501669.html

This states the reason. Really though?!?!??!?! I think it's time to go ahead and start working on that area now. This is why concrete freeways are so much better than asphalt ones.

Oh god, here too - http://prntscr.com/116v7u
Link ain't working. :banghead:
Paywall?

Try this one - https://abc11.com/traffic/i-95-south-in-robeson-co-closed-for-emergency-repairs-until-saturday/10495514/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on April 08, 2021, 01:55:12 PM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250501669.html

This states the reason. Really though?!?!??!?! I think it's time to go ahead and start working on that area now. This is why concrete freeways are so much better than asphalt ones.

Oh god, here too - http://prntscr.com/116v7u
Link ain't working. :banghead:
Paywall?

Try this one - https://abc11.com/traffic/i-95-south-in-robeson-co-closed-for-emergency-repairs-until-saturday/10495514/
No, the print screen shows the image in a .bin format.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 08, 2021, 03:31:21 PM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article250501669.html

This states the reason. Really though?!?!??!?! I think it's time to go ahead and start working on that area now. This is why concrete freeways are so much better than asphalt ones.

Oh god, here too - http://prntscr.com/116v7u
Link ain't working. :banghead:
Paywall?

Try this one - https://abc11.com/traffic/i-95-south-in-robeson-co-closed-for-emergency-repairs-until-saturday/10495514/
No, the print screen shows the image in a .bin format.
it was near the I-295/I-95 split, there was heavy traffic in that area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on April 08, 2021, 03:55:56 PM
The I-40 rest area near the TN state line has been reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx)

Hallelujah!  Though I could have used that stop last Monday when I was passing through that area.  The two TN rest areas past there were packed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on April 08, 2021, 07:02:22 PM
Drove past the I-95 closure this afternoon. Backup was about 4 miles back from Exit 10, highway was eerily empty well into SC. NCDOT has about a dozen plus vehicles at the repair site. Looks like the backfill to one of the overpasses washed out and caved in the roadway right at the bridge abutment. Hopefully its a quick fix as the closure is in a location without any decent detours or alternatives.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 13, 2021, 04:37:56 PM
WRAL is now reporting that NCDOT Ferry Division resumed partial operations on the Cedar Island-to-Ocracoke ferry and the Swan Quarter-to-Ocracoke ferry today.  At my last report, shoaling had caused these ferries to be limited to high tide operations, and I'm guessing that either the shoaling has gotten worse or the high-tide schedule wasn't suitable. 

Quote
Ferry service on Pamlico Sound resumed on Tuesday as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continued work on shoaling issues in Bigfoot Slough near Ocracoke.
<snipped>
Quote
Dredging operations are expected to continue through the week, weather and times permitting. Once the dredging work is complete and water depths and channel widths return to acceptable levels, the Ferry Division will resume its regular, three-boat schedule on both routes, the department said.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 14, 2021, 01:00:44 PM
The I-40 rest area near the TN state line has been reopened.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-08-i-40-west-haywood-rest-area.aspx)

Meanwhile, the Welcome Center and rest area on I-85 near the VA state line closed today for renovations, which are expected to take up to 12 weeks to complete.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-13-i-85-welcome-center-rest-area-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-13-i-85-welcome-center-rest-area-closed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 14, 2021, 04:19:48 PM
NC 27 does seem to be a route that would have been moved to follow US 74 and I-277 a long time ago. How did you find out about this change before contacting NCDOT?

I recently drove on it, was shocked when I realized the realignment.

In case anyone was questioning the rerouting of NC 27,  roadwaywiz posted a photo on the YouTube Community Tab yesterday showing NC 27 signed with US 74 and I-277.

(https://www.youtube.com/post/UgwIhyvOVKEAbFsPFPx4AaABCQ?ocd=1)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 14, 2021, 11:40:06 PM
@sprjus4

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/U-4721_Feasibility-Study_Report_2014.pdf

They proposed this and that's probably why they modified it from a trumpet to a DDI interchange. I still think they could do better though like make it similar to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8927294,-78.814143,15.75z) interchange.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/MergerMeetings/U-5518/181206_U-5518_packet_CP3%20and%20CP4A_reduced.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 15, 2021, 09:24:36 AM
Part of the old Bonner Bridge collapsed. 1 death has been reported.

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/ (https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 15, 2021, 10:23:29 AM
Part of the old Bonner Bridge collapsed. 1 death has been reported.

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/ (https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/)
Saw that, wonder why they are taking so long to demolish it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 15, 2021, 06:16:52 PM
Part of the old Bonner Bridge collapsed. 1 death has been reported.

https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/ (https://www.wnct.com/news/north-carolina/ncdot-1-person-dead-following-construction-accident-at-old-section-of-bonner-bridge/)
Press accounts are a bit confused about what section fell. The southernmost section of the bridge is being preserved as a fishing pier; that's complete and the pier is about to open. The section that fell was one of the longest sections, crossing the navigation channel in the middle of the inlet. I've been looking to see if that will pose a danger to navigation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 16, 2021, 06:52:03 PM
As part of the I-440 improvements project, the ramp from I-440 East to Western Blvd is scheduled to be closed all day tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-16-i-440-east-ramp-western-blvd-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-16-i-440-east-ramp-western-blvd-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 18, 2021, 07:46:34 PM
Why is there a quick lane drop on westbound I-540 near the US-1 interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 18, 2021, 09:30:05 PM
Why is there a quick lane drop on westbound I-540 near the US-1 interchange?

I am guessing, but maybe because US 1 is considered a major highway and a lot more traffic coming and going from it than the through traffic that currently exists for I-540 there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 20, 2021, 10:15:57 PM
Would give me nightmares.

https://www.witn.com/2021/04/20/traffic-alert-greenville-intersection-closed-due-to-significant-vehicle-crash/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 21, 2021, 04:11:14 PM
Would this need a high rise bridge to prevent flooding problems like US-17 does?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0046176,-77.2297533,4361m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 22, 2021, 05:21:43 PM
Can the Southwest bypass be called I-287 once it connects to I-42 or US-64?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 23, 2021, 10:40:56 AM
Can the Southwest bypass be called I-287 once it connects to I-42 or US-64?

Not likely as auxiliary interstate highways typically connect to the parent interstate route. I am aware I-585 is an exception, but that is only because I-85 was moved onto a new bypass route, leaving its spur.

If an exception was made, it would likely be also a odd number since since it to would be a spur from an interstate.

Keep in mind that both AASHTO and FHWA would need to sign-off on it, assuming NCDOT even submits the idea.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 23, 2021, 11:01:24 AM
Would this need a high rise bridge to prevent flooding problems like US-17 does?

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0046176,-77.2297533,4361m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

US 17 has a high bridge because it replaced a draw bridge.  If they were trying to alleviate flooding they would've raised the causeway too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2021, 11:49:10 AM
Can the Southwest bypass be called I-287 once it connects to I-42 or US-64?

Not likely as auxiliary interstate highways typically connect to the parent interstate route. I am aware I-585 is an exception, but that is only because I-85 was moved onto a new bypass route, leaving its spur.

If an exception was made, it would likely be also a odd number since since it to would be a spur from an interstate.

Keep in mind that both AASHTO and FHWA would need to sign-off on it, assuming NCDOT even submits the idea.
I mean, they idea of an auxiliary spur not touching its parent isn’t unheard of. Look at I-175 and I-375 in Florida, I-795 in Maryland, I-105 in California, etc.

Now granted, tolbs is referring here to if they upgrade NC-11 on either end to interstate standards between US-64 (I-87) and US-70 (I-42), which in that case, I’d say, yes, a I-x87 could work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on April 23, 2021, 12:56:16 PM
NCDOT posted this on their Twitter as well, but the site seems to be down at the moment as I try to access Bob Malme's update on I-73/I-74.

Coastal Review Online: Park Service, NCDOT Unveil Autonomous Bus (https://www.coastalreview.org/2021/04/park-service-ncdot-unveil-autonomous-bus/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2021, 05:06:09 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract to improve the Mebane Oaks Road interchange on I-40/I-85 in Alamance County. Completion is scheduled for summer 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-23-mebane-oaks-i-40-interchange-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-23-mebane-oaks-i-40-interchange-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on April 23, 2021, 11:45:03 PM
Mebane Oaks Road was long overdue for this type of overhaul. Jimmy Kerr Road (Exit 150) has to be next.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on April 24, 2021, 12:17:14 AM
Can the Southwest bypass be called I-287 once it connects to I-42 or US-64?

Not likely as auxiliary interstate highways typically connect to the parent interstate route. I am aware I-585 is an exception, but that is only because I-85 was moved onto a new bypass route, leaving its spur.

If an exception was made, it would likely be also a odd number since since it to would be a spur from an interstate.

Keep in mind that both AASHTO and FHWA would need to sign-off on it, assuming NCDOT even submits the idea.
I mean, they idea of an auxiliary spur not touching its parent isn’t unheard of. Look at I-175 and I-375 in Florida, I-795 in Maryland, I-105 in California, etc.

Now granted, tolbs is referring here to if they upgrade NC-11 on either end to interstate standards between US-64 (I-87) and US-70 (I-42), which in that case, I’d say, yes, a I-x87 could work.

Or an x42.  2 87's is 1 more than enough; don't need yet another x87 (insult to injury!). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 24, 2021, 09:14:08 PM
Mebane Oaks Road was long overdue for this type of overhaul. Jimmy Kerr Road (Exit 150) has to be next.

Alamance County was not careful about getting Tanger Outlets to make improvements to the Mebane-Oaks exit when it first opened, so the current arrangement was a shoe-horn job NCDOT.  On the other hand, Orange County asked Tanger for too much when they originally proposed its development at the Jockey Lot Flea Market at the Buckhorn Road exit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on April 24, 2021, 09:21:10 PM
The Buckhorn Flea Market has had so many rumored developments. Growing up the biggest rumor for that land was a Six Flag style theme park was coming.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 24, 2021, 10:05:19 PM
Mebane Oaks Road was long overdue for this type of overhaul. Jimmy Kerr Road (Exit 150) has to be next.

Alamance County was not careful about getting Tanger Outlets to make improvements to the Mebane-Oaks exit when it first opened, so the current arrangement was a shoe-horn job NCDOT.  On the other hand, Orange County asked Tanger for too much when they originally proposed its development at the Jockey Lot Flea Market at the Buckhorn Road exit.

The Buckhorn Flea Market has had so many rumored developments. Growing up the biggest rumor for that land was a Six Flag style theme park was coming.

This area is going to get very busy soon with a huge medical supply distribution center being constructed close to Gravelly Hill Middle School on West Ten Road east of the Buckhorn exit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: branched-out on April 24, 2021, 11:05:04 PM
An interesting find in the Raleigh area: The Wake/Raleigh online GIS maps show a disconnected section of E Tryon Rd, adjacent to I-40 south of the I-40/I-87 split, right after the Rock Quarry Rd overpass (the one without an exit).

(https://i.imgur.com/MspaoeZ.jpg)

It lines up with the dead end of Sunnybrook Rd on the other side of I-40, so it appears it was intended to meet up one day.  I did some research and found a 1994 feasibility study: https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/U-3111_Feasibility-Study_Report_1994.pdf

The funniest part of the study: "A grade separation is recommended at the proposed crossing with I-40".  hahaha!!! Ya think?!?  You don't think a 4-way intersection on an interstate will be sufficient??
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 29, 2021, 07:50:02 AM
What should the DOT do about this... No barrier, no guardrails. A person can swerve into the exit lane.

And the stripping looks odd aswell.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9818475,-77.878563,3a,75y,128.91h,67.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTPF3r3C5sDMSXsCCvrBoXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 29, 2021, 09:15:36 AM
What should the DOT do about this... No barrier, no guardrails. A person can swerve into the exit lane.

And the stripping looks odd aswell.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9818475,-77.878563,3a,75y,128.91h,67.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTPF3r3C5sDMSXsCCvrBoXA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Oddly, the bridge has a concrete median strip on it.  Curious why that wasn't a feature all the way through the interchange.

Given the age of the bridge, the best solution IMO is when it is replaced to make room for a formal jersey barrier that is along the entire C/D setup.

The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.

 I-95 at Exit 109 in Maryland at least has a small raised concrete curb (though can easily be driven over).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on April 29, 2021, 11:21:30 AM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on April 29, 2021, 04:05:30 PM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.

A K-rail or thrie-beam barrier between the through and C/D lanes might well be part of any upgrades to Interstate status when NCDOT elects to undertake that.  Question: are the C/D lanes on I-95 on the lower interchange level configured the same or do they feature some sort of barrier?   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 29, 2021, 04:10:08 PM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.

A K-rail or thrie-beam barrier between the through and C/D lanes might well be part of any upgrades to Interstate status when NCDOT elects to undertake that.  Question: are the C/D lanes on I-95 on the lower interchange level configured the same or do they feature some sort of barrier?
There is a median between the lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 04:32:34 PM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.

A K-rail or thrie-beam barrier between the through and C/D lanes might well be part of any upgrades to Interstate status when NCDOT elects to undertake that.  Question: are the C/D lanes on I-95 on the lower interchange level configured the same or do they feature some sort of barrier?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9774988,-77.8782287,3a,48.4y,25.64h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sroIK1i9r9F79FTo5YoUcsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-95 is correctly done with a grass median between the mainline and the C/D roadway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on April 29, 2021, 04:42:01 PM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.

A K-rail or thrie-beam barrier between the through and C/D lanes might well be part of any upgrades to Interstate status when NCDOT elects to undertake that.  Question: are the C/D lanes on I-95 on the lower interchange level configured the same or do they feature some sort of barrier?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9774988,-77.8782287,3a,48.4y,25.64h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sroIK1i9r9F79FTo5YoUcsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-95 is correctly done with a grass median between the mainline and the C/D roadway.

Good to know (and see!).  Obviously, the same isn't feasible for US 64; a physical barrier of some sort would be necessary.  Again, something that would likely occur during a Interstate upgrade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 29, 2021, 04:59:48 PM
The DC Beltway has an interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/dPxAVVq18KoJoHS46) like this in Prince Georges County - C/D lanes (plus the right through lane!) with no real barrier.
Given how that's signed (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9313821,-76.8548398,3a,75y,178.7h,96.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxoXc7N7b3X2I7rcz81ZvzQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) with 'lanes divide' and 'all lanes through' that seems like more of a local/express divide.  That encourages the use of the local lanes by traffic staying on the highway.  C/D setups usually are more for only exiting or entering traffic.

A K-rail or thrie-beam barrier between the through and C/D lanes might well be part of any upgrades to Interstate status when NCDOT elects to undertake that.  Question: are the C/D lanes on I-95 on the lower interchange level configured the same or do they feature some sort of barrier?
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9774988,-77.8782287,3a,48.4y,25.64h,84.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sroIK1i9r9F79FTo5YoUcsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I-95 is correctly done with a grass median between the mainline and the C/D roadway.

Good to know (and see!).  Obviously, the same isn't feasible for US 64; a physical barrier of some sort would be necessary.  Again, something that would likely occur during a Interstate upgrade.
They plan to add a concrete barrier, until they reconfigure the interchange.

That interchange was constructed in the late 70s. the bridges are not that bad, but I guess they could use some modification.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 29, 2021, 05:01:21 PM
Are there official plans to reconfigure the interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 29, 2021, 05:08:07 PM
Are there official plans to reconfigure the interchange?
As far as I know, no. But I'm sure NCDOT will consider it.

This is how it should look as of right now.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.697751,-78.8707379,3a,66.8y,272.28h,74.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbvT6_naZhvGPQpvP9e9G3Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 30, 2021, 07:08:41 PM
How does this part NOT meet interstate standards?

https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/i87exits.html

http://prntscr.com/12bwzfo

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8275356,-77.1385467,3a,75y,82.79h,73.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYgyWMmGp72pQzro8W5vY2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 30, 2021, 07:42:41 PM
Is that left shoulder 4 ft?

I’m looking from an iPhone but it looks too small to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 30, 2021, 07:46:33 PM
Is that left shoulder 4 ft?

I’m looking from an iPhone but it looks too small to me.
Yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 30, 2021, 08:28:45 PM
Is that left shoulder 4 ft?

I’m looking from an iPhone but it looks too small to me.
US-64 between Tarboro and Williamston was the newest portion built after 1991, and was constructed to interstate standards. The only thing preventing designation is, obviously, it does not currently connect to another interstate highway as US-64 west of Tarboro does not meet interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on April 30, 2021, 08:31:13 PM
Is that left shoulder 4 ft?

I’m looking from an iPhone but it looks too small to me.
US-64 between Tarboro and Williamston was the newest portion built after 1991, and was constructed to interstate standards. The only thing preventing designation is, obviously, it does not currently connect to another interstate highway as US-64 west of Tarboro does not meet interstate standards.
And it looks like bob put "no" for it meeting interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 01, 2021, 10:46:59 AM
My first guess would be perhaps something with the substructure or pavement depth....things one (especially non-engineers) would not be able to see on the surface...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 11:20:52 AM
Likely just a minor error on his site. NCDOT’s feasibility segment for US-64 did not recommend any needed upgrades for that portion east of Tarboro.

Additionally, a section added much later to his page, lists the following.

Quote
US 13/64 from Edgecombe/Martin County Line to US 17 in Williamston

Route Type: Interstate Standard Freeway    Length: 18.4 Miles    Status: Complete (signage could be updated)

The US 13/64 freeway from the Edgecombe/Martin County Line was built to interstate standards. The feasibility study only recommends possible signage updates and the addition of an ITS system costing $2.2 million. They also suggest the possible reconstruction of the NC 125 (Prison Camp Road) interchange which would add another $2.5 million to the total.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 12:27:20 PM
So that's a mistake that bob put it looks like.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 01, 2021, 04:17:04 PM
Likely just a minor error on his site. NCDOT’s feasibility segment for US-64 did not recommend any needed upgrades for that portion east of Tarboro.

Additionally, a section added much later to his page, lists the following.

Quote
US 13/64 from Edgecombe/Martin County Line to US 17 in Williamston

Route Type: Interstate Standard Freeway    Length: 18.4 Miles    Status: Complete (signage could be updated)

The US 13/64 freeway from the Edgecombe/Martin County Line was built to interstate standards. The feasibility study only recommends possible signage updates and the addition of an ITS system costing $2.2 million. They also suggest the possible reconstruction of the NC 125 (Prison Camp Road) interchange which would add another $2.5 million to the total.

What is interesting is the fact that the portion of the US 64 freeway that was built to Interstate standards was constructed after the facility was designated a portion of High Priority Corridor #13 back in 1991.  One may take an educated guess that when that designation occurred someone at or with influence with NCDOT had the eventual Interstate designation in mind and revised the freeway plans accordingly.  It just took a quarter-century for such a designation to actually occur. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 04:18:40 PM
Likely just a minor error on his site. NCDOT’s feasibility segment for US-64 did not recommend any needed upgrades for that portion east of Tarboro.

Additionally, a section added much later to his page, lists the following.

Quote
US 13/64 from Edgecombe/Martin County Line to US 17 in Williamston

Route Type: Interstate Standard Freeway    Length: 18.4 Miles    Status: Complete (signage could be updated)

The US 13/64 freeway from the Edgecombe/Martin County Line was built to interstate standards. The feasibility study only recommends possible signage updates and the addition of an ITS system costing $2.2 million. They also suggest the possible reconstruction of the NC 125 (Prison Camp Road) interchange which would add another $2.5 million to the total.

What is interesting is the fact that the portion of the US 64 freeway that was built to Interstate standards was constructed after the facility was designated a portion of High Priority Corridor #13 back in 1991.  One may take an educated guess that when that designation occurred someone at or with influence with NCDOT had the eventual Interstate designation in mind and revised the freeway plans accordingly.  It just took a quarter-century for such a designation to actually occur.
The old plan was to route it on NC 11 which is a forest and there's nothing there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 05:03:42 PM
Likely just a minor error on his site. NCDOT’s feasibility segment for US-64 did not recommend any needed upgrades for that portion east of Tarboro.

Additionally, a section added much later to his page, lists the following.

Quote
US 13/64 from Edgecombe/Martin County Line to US 17 in Williamston

Route Type: Interstate Standard Freeway    Length: 18.4 Miles    Status: Complete (signage could be updated)

The US 13/64 freeway from the Edgecombe/Martin County Line was built to interstate standards. The feasibility study only recommends possible signage updates and the addition of an ITS system costing $2.2 million. They also suggest the possible reconstruction of the NC 125 (Prison Camp Road) interchange which would add another $2.5 million to the total.

What is interesting is the fact that the portion of the US 64 freeway that was built to Interstate standards was constructed after the facility was designated a portion of High Priority Corridor #13 back in 1991.  One may take an educated guess that when that designation occurred someone at or with influence with NCDOT had the eventual Interstate designation in mind and revised the freeway plans accordingly.  It just took a quarter-century for such a designation to actually occur.
Also interestingly, the fact that the US-17 bypasses of Windsor, Edenton, and Elizabeth City, all built or upgraded after 1991, were not built to interstate standards.

Honestly, all new location freeway segments should be built to interstate standards by default - interstate designation or not. I believe this is the method that is finally happening on most new freeway bypasses in the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 05:23:39 PM
Likely just a minor error on his site. NCDOT’s feasibility segment for US-64 did not recommend any needed upgrades for that portion east of Tarboro.

Additionally, a section added much later to his page, lists the following.

Quote
US 13/64 from Edgecombe/Martin County Line to US 17 in Williamston

Route Type: Interstate Standard Freeway    Length: 18.4 Miles    Status: Complete (signage could be updated)

The US 13/64 freeway from the Edgecombe/Martin County Line was built to interstate standards. The feasibility study only recommends possible signage updates and the addition of an ITS system costing $2.2 million. They also suggest the possible reconstruction of the NC 125 (Prison Camp Road) interchange which would add another $2.5 million to the total.

What is interesting is the fact that the portion of the US 64 freeway that was built to Interstate standards was constructed after the facility was designated a portion of High Priority Corridor #13 back in 1991.  One may take an educated guess that when that designation occurred someone at or with influence with NCDOT had the eventual Interstate designation in mind and revised the freeway plans accordingly.  It just took a quarter-century for such a designation to actually occur.
Also interestingly, the fact that the US-17 bypasses of Windsor, Edenton, and Elizabeth City, all built or upgraded after 1991, were not built to interstate standards.

Honestly, all new location freeway segments should be built to interstate standards by default - interstate designation or not. I believe this is the method that is finally happening on most new freeway bypasses in the state.
Like the Greenville Southwest Bypass and the CF Harvey Parkway ones.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 07:53:35 PM
Another thing I'll add - even divided highway widenings should feature full shoulders. That is still something NCDOT does not factor in on current and even future planned projects.

The only recent example I can think of was the US-17 Maysville and Pollocksville project, the segments constructed around the towns were built to full interstate standards, and the section of US-17 they widened between was also done with full outer shoulders - which is rare to see in North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 01, 2021, 08:14:20 PM
Another thing I'll add - even divided highway widenings should feature full shoulders. That is still something NCDOT does not factor in on current and even future planned projects.

The only recent example I can think of was the US-17 Maysville and Pollocksville project, the segments constructed around the towns were built to full interstate standards, and the section of US-17 they widened between was also done with full outer shoulders - which is rare to see in North Carolina.
There's another one here in Greenville!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6651323,-77.3616224,3a,75y,27.39h,75.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIUKQeDmdmfc7ENXghw11JQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 02, 2021, 02:21:07 PM
Another thing I'll add - even divided highway widenings should feature full shoulders. That is still something NCDOT does not factor in on current and even future planned projects.

The only recent example I can think of was the US-17 Maysville and Pollocksville project, the segments constructed around the towns were built to full interstate standards, and the section of US-17 they widened between was also done with full outer shoulders - which is rare to see in North Carolina.
There's another one here in Greenville!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6651323,-77.3616224,3a,75y,27.39h,75.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIUKQeDmdmfc7ENXghw11JQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I thought the same thing about the US401 widening from Raleigh to Louisburg. The shoulder is only a 2' or so wide like a 2 lane highway. But then I remembered it's officially a superstreet design, so I guess they wouldn't.

But I'm sure every additional foot of width costs a lot of money. They have to make the underpinning or foundation wider too. All in all I guess you could calculate how much each foot of width costs and then it's like adding 30-40% more pavement and 25% more total cost of the project.

That's significant.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 02, 2021, 02:26:36 PM
Another thing I'll add - even divided highway widenings should feature full shoulders. That is still something NCDOT does not factor in on current and even future planned projects.

The only recent example I can think of was the US-17 Maysville and Pollocksville project, the segments constructed around the towns were built to full interstate standards, and the section of US-17 they widened between was also done with full outer shoulders - which is rare to see in North Carolina.
There's another one here in Greenville!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6651323,-77.3616224,3a,75y,27.39h,75.1t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIUKQeDmdmfc7ENXghw11JQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I thought the same thing about the US401 widening from Raleigh to Louisburg. The shoulder is only a 2' or so wide like a 2 lane highway. But then I remembered it's officially a superstreet design, so I guess they wouldn't.

But I'm sure every additional foot of width costs a lot of money. They have to make the underpinning or foundation wider too. All in all I guess you could calculate how much each foot of width costs and then it's like adding 30-40% more pavement and 25% more total cost of the project.

That's significant.
That's prolly why they didn't do it. Same thing with rumble strips.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 02, 2021, 02:58:14 PM
Shoulders aren't necessary anyway. Raleigh's beltline Westbound between Six Forks and Crabtree Valley made out just fine, lol.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50763481561_1bc2b5285e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kkN7uH)Beltline_1967 (https://flic.kr/p/2kkN7uH) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 02, 2021, 03:04:24 PM
Shoulders aren't necessary anyway. Raleigh's beltline Westbound between Six Forks and Crabtree Valley made out just fine, lol.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50763481561_1bc2b5285e_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2kkN7uH)Beltline_1967 (https://flic.kr/p/2kkN7uH) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
How about if one pulls to the side??
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 05, 2021, 01:41:37 AM
Quote
I-95 South closed in Robeson County; Traffic detoured to U.S. 301 – Interstate 95 is closed at Exit 10 in Robeson County after a void was discovered under a section of roadway spanning Boyce Road. NCDOT crews will be working around the clock to perform emergency repairs. Traffic is being detoured to U.S. Highway 301, and reconnecting to I-95 at Exit 7
Looks like I-95 will be dealing with a MAJOR issue and will cause backups for days! Reopening date is Saturday!  :wow:
Source: https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561 (https://drivenc.gov/?type=incident&id=606561)

Glad I wasn't up there. I did a GSV scan (https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B034'30.0%22N+79%C2%B011'25.0%22W/@34.561709,-79.1821614,744m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d34.575!4d-79.190278?hl=en), and I see that bridge is also for an abandoned railway line. Is there a plan to convert this into a rail trail,or something else? Because if not, maybe when it is rebuilt, it should be kept two lanes underneath.

Even if they leave the ROW for future use, they could probably just get longer beams that don't include those pylons on the sides.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 11, 2021, 12:27:43 PM
A bill is brewing in the state House that would make the 'zipper merge' law.

https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/ (https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2021, 12:42:42 PM
A bill is brewing in the state House that would make the 'zipper merge' law.

https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/ (https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/)
Good, hopefully it passes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 11, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
Looks like the I-440 improvements project is halfway finished.

https://www.wral.com/i-440-widening-project-about-halfway-finished/19672774/ (https://www.wral.com/i-440-widening-project-about-halfway-finished/19672774/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 11, 2021, 05:14:51 PM
Looks like the I-440 improvements project is halfway finished.

https://www.wral.com/i-440-widening-project-about-halfway-finished/19672774/ (https://www.wral.com/i-440-widening-project-about-halfway-finished/19672774/)
Should take until 2023. Possibly sooner
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 11, 2021, 10:04:58 PM
A bill is brewing in the state House that would make the 'zipper merge' law.

https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/ (https://www.wral.com/bill-would-make-zipper-merge-the-law-in-nc/19672570/)

Not sure if it was already discussed, but NCDOT tested a zipper merge at the junction of the Durham Freeway with I-85 southbound [westbound] back in August 2016.  This only lasted a few months, and the original merge signage was restored.  This had only been a problem on I-40 until after school started back in 2015 and I-85 started getting worse congestion.  We usually use the back roads between Durham and Hillsborough in the afternoons (much shorter distance for our typical trips), so I tried the zipper merge once to "clinch" it.  It seemed to work a bit better, so I'm not sure why NCDOT reverted back.

There was some weird Zipper Merge signage in use:  https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article92792737.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/community/durham-news/article92792737.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on May 12, 2021, 02:01:36 AM
I wonder what the actual law regarding zipper merge (in places where it is law) really is. For example, what are you supposed to do if your car is next to another car, you can't tell which of the two cars is in front, and there's no traffic in front of you so you have no idea if it's the left lane's turn or the right lane's turn. For this reason, the standard merge law (either left lane yields, or right lane yields, per signage) seems safer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 12, 2021, 12:27:09 PM
Is the law for work zones, or anywhere a lane merges? As written, it appears to refer to anywhere. Will signs have to be replaced? Lane markings revised?

I get it for work zones and temporary lane closures (upcoming example of one on I-26 (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/03-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Henderson%2015BPR20%20C204202%20Eight%20Week%20Ad/Individual%20Sheets/200%20Transportation%20Management%20Plans/200_006_15BPR.20_TC_TMP_02A.pdf)), but I don't think this is going to change how anyone utilizes existing merge points. The better solution would be to eliminate the bottlenecks that create the issues in the first place.

"Where two lanes of traffic merge into one, drivers shall utilize both lanes until reaching the merging area, and, beginning with the driver in the right lane, alternate yielding the right-of-way until there is no longer a queue at the merging area."

HB 740 v2 (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/House/PDF/H740v2.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 12, 2021, 06:18:31 PM
It's hard to imagine cops enforcing this law as long as there's no accident. They have a lot better ways to occupy their time. If there's an accident, it might help identify the driver at fault.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 12, 2021, 09:25:32 PM
Construction at the I-440 and Wade Ave. interchange a couple of weeks ago.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530443_7316791264_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530443_25f0b7f957_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530533_becd28497f_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530533_f2f9929994_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51174632482_7fc36f6b3d_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51174632482_0763005ca6_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51176096544_83e01c61a8_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51176096544_e592849058_o.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530703_b81f17b969_z.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51175530703_dd2c6b2673_o.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 19, 2021, 08:10:54 AM
A project to repair the failing drainage system on I-26 at Howard Gap in Polk County (MM 62.5-64.0) is scheduled to begin this summer. Construction can begin after July 26, with most construction finished by May 2023.

It's not often you see roadway plans with "active landslide" outlined.

Project Proposal (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK_15614.1075010_C204638/Project%20Proposal.pdf)
Roadway Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK_15614.1075010_C204638/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 19, 2021, 09:38:57 AM
On the Beltline, I'm not a huge fan of precast retaining walls that mimic other stone products. I say keep it plain and unobtrusive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Avalanchez71 on May 19, 2021, 10:06:46 AM
On the Beltline, I'm not a huge fan of precast retaining walls that mimic other stone products. I say keep it plain and unobtrusive.

What are you speaking of here?  Is it to the aesthetics or functionality?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on May 20, 2021, 12:11:16 AM
^^^^Thank you for the Beltline pics. Been wondering about progress there for a while. First pics I've seen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 20, 2021, 12:44:10 PM
As part of the I-26 widening project, the new Brookside Camp Road bridge over I-26 near Hendersonville opens today.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-05-20-new-bridge-i-26-brookside-camp.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-05-20-new-bridge-i-26-brookside-camp.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 21, 2021, 08:15:29 AM
^^^^Thank you for the Beltline pics. Been wondering about progress there for a while. First pics I've seen.

I'd like to get some pictures at the Hillsborough and Western interchanges, but they're a little tricky to get to. Honestly, not much is happening at either interchange at the moment. They've started walls and bridges at both, but nothing "major" or exciting that is worth going out of the way for. They've cleared some land and demolished the gas station at the intersection of Blue Ridge and Hillsborough, but no major construction has started there that I can see. Based on how slowly the work is going at the Wade interchange, I'm a little dubious of their claim of completing this in 2023, but we will see. (Photos from last June here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=100.msg2507965#msg2507965).)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 21, 2021, 08:27:17 AM
A project to repair the failing drainage system on I-26 at Howard Gap in Polk County (MM 62.5-64.0) is scheduled to begin this summer. Construction can begin after July 26, with most construction finished by May 2023.

It's not often you see roadway plans with "active landslide" outlined.

Project Proposal (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK_15614.1075010_C204638/Project%20Proposal.pdf)
Roadway Plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/POLK_15614.1075010_C204638/Standard%20PDF%20Files/100%20Roadway%20Plans.pdf)

I-26 drainage fun fact of the day: "sideway wells."
Asheville Citizen, March 21, 1975

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51194290790_d7ea33b143_o.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on May 21, 2021, 09:04:06 AM
Some construction equipment has started appearing at I-85 exits 164 and 165 in Hillsborough. Anyone have an idea of what is about to happen?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 21, 2021, 05:57:08 PM
http://prntscr.com/138kt7z

Oof

http://prntscr.com/138kx32

http://prntscr.com/138kzi3

Unless it's people that drive like idiots but AADT is way to high for this to only be 6 lanes. 8 lanes too even.

https://www.wral.com/traffic-i-40-and-us-1-64-i-440/12327131/

And what the hell are they doing here?!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 21, 2021, 06:09:02 PM
https://www.wral.com/traffic-i-40-and-us-1-64-i-440/12327131/

And what the hell are they doing here?!
Widening the highway?  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 21, 2021, 06:11:57 PM
https://www.wral.com/traffic-i-40-and-us-1-64-i-440/12327131/

And what the hell are they doing here?!
Widening the highway?  :confused:
Didn't know. I was thinking that was I-40 and not I-440.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-440-improvements/Documents/pre-construction-map-2-i-40-athens.pdf

Shows there is no concrete barrier unless the plans have changed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 23, 2021, 08:40:51 AM
Is it just me, or is the new bridge for Truck Stop Road over I-95 kind of low?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5786366,-78.1466956,3a,75y,6.99h,99.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scTxDRLhpxXAWBuRV_WuJpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 23, 2021, 08:47:19 AM
Is it just me, or is the new bridge for Truck Stop Road over I-95 kind of low?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5786366,-78.1466956,3a,75y,6.99h,99.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scTxDRLhpxXAWBuRV_WuJpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en



Looks like the bottom of the new bridge will be roughly the height of the top of the current bridge railing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on May 23, 2021, 10:07:44 AM
That wooden scaffolding must be the reason for my false assumption.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 24, 2021, 08:35:37 AM
Is it just me, or is the new bridge for Truck Stop Road over I-95 kind of low?

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5786366,-78.1466956,3a,75y,6.99h,99.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1scTxDRLhpxXAWBuRV_WuJpg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en
Haha that looks kinda funny
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 27, 2021, 06:27:25 PM
NCDOT has announced the Hertford "S" Swing Bridge over the Perquimans River is closing, seven weeks early, due to damage sustained in a recent crash. The bridge was going to close in July anyway while DOT builds a new bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/us-17-perquimans-closed-earlier.aspx

Here's the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/TGo6eBfaY7wqQmnE7
https://bridgehunter.com/nc/perquimans/1430008/
The bridge was built in 1929.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 27, 2021, 06:29:44 PM
NCDOT has announced the Hertford "S" Swing Bridge over the Perquimans River is closing, seven weeks early, due to damage sustained in a recent crash. The bridge was going to close in July anyway while DOT builds a new bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/us-17-perquimans-closed-earlier.aspx

Here's the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/TGo6eBfaY7wqQmnE7
https://bridgehunter.com/nc/perquimans/1430008/
The bridge was built in 1929.
Isn't that one of the first drawbridges built in North Carolina?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 27, 2021, 08:35:54 PM
NCDOT has announced the Hertford "S" Swing Bridge over the Perquimans River is closing, seven weeks early, due to damage sustained in a recent crash. The bridge was going to close in July anyway while DOT builds a new bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/us-17-perquimans-closed-earlier.aspx

Here's the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/TGo6eBfaY7wqQmnE7
https://bridgehunter.com/nc/perquimans/1430008/
The bridge was built in 1929.
Isn't that one of the first drawbridges built in North Carolina?

At least 2 drawbridges were built 150 years earlier–– https://www.ncpedia.org/drawbridges
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 28, 2021, 06:36:23 PM
NCDOT has announced the Hertford "S" Swing Bridge over the Perquimans River is closing, seven weeks early, due to damage sustained in a recent crash. The bridge was going to close in July anyway while DOT builds a new bridge.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/us-17-perquimans-closed-earlier.aspx

Here's the bridge: https://goo.gl/maps/TGo6eBfaY7wqQmnE7
https://bridgehunter.com/nc/perquimans/1430008/
The bridge was built in 1929.
Isn't that one of the first drawbridges built in North Carolina?

At least 2 drawbridges were built 150 years earlier–– https://www.ncpedia.org/drawbridges

NCDOT is building a new swing bridge next to the old one; a high bridge was considered but the locals were opposed to that. I'd have to guess that not many new swing bridges are being built these days. I don't know if the historic bridge will be retained for bikes and pedestrians.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-business/Pages/project-highlights.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 28, 2021, 10:14:53 PM
I wonder why a bascule bridge wasn't considered.

And according to that plan, the old one is to be demolished i'm sure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on May 28, 2021, 10:59:42 PM
I wonder why a bascule bridge wasn't considered.

And according to that plan, the old one is to be demolished i'm sure.

The roadgeek in me don't mind a new swing bridge at all  :bigass:

But yeah, I was about to ask the same thing you did. Maybe the residents in that area don't want anything in the air there, no matter how tall (short!!) the draw span is. How many times does the bridge open during the week anyway?

Or maybe it's a matter of cost. Which draw option is cheaper?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 29, 2021, 09:29:50 AM
These projects will come alive?

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4441_Feasibility-Study_Report_2003.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 29, 2021, 10:23:43 AM
These projects will come alive?

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4441_Feasibility-Study_Report_2003.pdf

What's the basis for believing this is back on the table now?

Guessing cost and # of residence/business relocations needed has gone up a fair amount in 18 years...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 29, 2021, 11:34:48 AM
Inevitably the project will eventually happen, particularly as more and more of the US-74 corridor gets improved and it ends up being the last gap between Charlotte and Wilmington, and even Asheville and Wilmington… but agreed on the point a new study would need to be produced given its age.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 29, 2021, 04:22:07 PM
Inevitably the project will eventually happen, particularly as more and more of the US-74 corridor gets improved and it ends up being the last gap between Charlotte and Wilmington, and even Asheville and Wilmington… but agreed on the point a new study would need to be produced given its age.

The 2003 study that was cited still depicted I-73 as using US 1 south of Rockingham rather than the later revision east to NC 38; and the Rockingham bypass itself was relocated from these now 18-year-old projections.  Also not considered: whether the town bypasses would be tolled as per the facility around Monroe.  I'm in agreement that the project will eventually be addressed; but the study parameters, particularly regarding tolling, will require a follow-up study (even presuming the basic alignment carries over from 2003).  What the existence of the older study indicates is that NDCOT has standing plans for this and other arterial routes within the state, which shows that agency support won't be the sticking point when proposals similar to this are addressed -- funding identification and subsequent ROW issues would likely remain front & center as the principal developmental obstacles, as with virtually all DOT's. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 29, 2021, 04:35:23 PM
^

Interestingly enough, it also shows I-74 splitting off near Chadbourne, west of Whiteville, taking a more direct shot towards Myrtle Beach than the current proposal to beeline towards Wilmington, then take a 90 degree turn south at Bolton and form a backwards “C” .

However, I think we all know at this rate I-74 is eventually going to either end up in Wilmington or removed all together. They need to begin planning to upgrade / relocate the US-74 corridor east of Bolton to at least I-140 or the existing US-74 freeway inside the beltway to interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 29, 2021, 06:58:55 PM
^

Interestingly enough, it also shows I-74 splitting off near Chadbourne, west of Whiteville, taking a more direct shot towards Myrtle Beach than the current proposal to beeline towards Wilmington, then take a 90 degree turn south at Bolton and form a backwards “C” .

However, I think we all know at this rate I-74 is eventually going to either end up in Wilmington or removed all together. They need to begin planning to upgrade / relocate the US-74 corridor east of Bolton to at least I-140 or the existing US-74 freeway inside the beltway to interstate standards.
Just have it end in Wilmington. Does the extra highway parallel NC 211 still needed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 29, 2021, 07:18:15 PM
^

Interestingly enough, it also shows I-74 splitting off near Chadbourne, west of Whiteville, taking a more direct shot towards Myrtle Beach than the current proposal to beeline towards Wilmington, then take a 90 degree turn south at Bolton and form a backwards “C” .

However, I think we all know at this rate I-74 is eventually going to either end up in Wilmington or removed all together. They need to begin planning to upgrade / relocate the US-74 corridor east of Bolton to at least I-140 or the existing US-74 freeway inside the beltway to interstate standards.
Just have it end in Wilmington. Does the extra highway parallel NC 211 still needed?
No, it's not needed. I agree, it should go to Wilmington and terminate where the freeway ends in Downtown Wilmington. Though, at the very least, to I-140 or US-17.

Additionally, US-17 should be upgraded between the proposed Carolina Bays Pkwy extension's northern terminus in Shallote up to I-140. Not sure that section of US-17 should necessarily warrant an interstate designation being standalone. The traffic volumes simply warrant at minimum a four lane freeway design between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 29, 2021, 08:27:03 PM
^

Interestingly enough, it also shows I-74 splitting off near Chadbourne, west of Whiteville, taking a more direct shot towards Myrtle Beach than the current proposal to beeline towards Wilmington, then take a 90 degree turn south at Bolton and form a backwards “C” .

However, I think we all know at this rate I-74 is eventually going to either end up in Wilmington or removed all together. They need to begin planning to upgrade / relocate the US-74 corridor east of Bolton to at least I-140 or the existing US-74 freeway inside the beltway to interstate standards.
Just have it end in Wilmington. Does the extra highway parallel NC 211 still needed?
No, it's not needed. I agree, it should go to Wilmington and terminate where the freeway ends in Downtown Wilmington. Though, at the very least, to I-140 or US-17.

Additionally, US-17 should be upgraded between the proposed Carolina Bays Pkwy extension's northern terminus in Shallote up to I-140. Not sure that section of US-17 should necessarily warrant an interstate designation being standalone. The traffic volumes simply warrant at minimum a four lane freeway design between Wilmington and Myrtle Beach.
Yeah, it should be done, now. That's a high priority, especially for summer traffic. Could I-140 be extended to Myrtle Beach until I-99 is signed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 30, 2021, 06:28:08 AM
Could I-140 be extended to Myrtle Beach until I-99 is signed?

Didn't realize we were in Fictional!  AFAIK, there's never been any mention outside those threads about a I-99 on the Carolina Coast!  Yeah, it's likely that somewhere down the line NCDOT will propose a US 17 upgrade to Interstate status throughout the state -- but at this time any numerical designation would be speculative at best. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on May 30, 2021, 08:09:26 AM
Could I-140 be extended to Myrtle Beach until I-99 is signed?

Didn't realize we were in Fictional!  AFAIK, there's never been any mention outside those threads about a I-99 on the Carolina Coast!  Yeah, it's likely that somewhere down the line NCDOT will propose a US 17 upgrade to Interstate status throughout the state -- but at this time any numerical designation would be speculative at best.

Well, only I-97 or I-99 would fit the grid, unless some Californian proposes I-101.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 30, 2021, 10:06:16 AM
These projects will come alive?

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/R-4441_Feasibility-Study_Report_2003.pdf

The traffic forecast on the last page is incredibly off. I seem to recall this started to become a big point of contention with NCDOT projects about 20 or years ago? Basically their traffic forecast methodology was linear interpolation and drawing a straight line. The extension of I-26 through Madison County and the number of lanes needed for the I-26 connector/I-240 widening in Asheville comes to mind. This is probably why so many middle of nowhere places have ended up with bypasses, 4 and 5 lanes, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on May 30, 2021, 10:10:24 AM
The latest info I have read on the I-74 corridor is that the eastern half of the Wadesboro bypass from current US 74 to US 52 is slated to begin construction in 2027 with a completion date of 2030.  The western half is currently unfunded and is not even listed in the 2020-2029 STIP.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 30, 2021, 12:20:25 PM
The latest info I have read on the I-74 corridor is that the eastern half of the Wadesboro bypass from current US 74 to US 52 is slated to begin construction in 2027 with a completion date of 2030.  The western half is currently unfunded and is not even listed in the 2020-2029 STIP.

The Wadesboro bypass is technically outside of the "I-74" corridor. I wish they'd drop both I-73 and I-74, but I won't bother ranting about that. I'm sure the Wadesboro bypass will eventually be built, but at this rate I honestly don't think the rest of U.S. 74 between the Monroe bypass and Rockingham will ever be upgraded beyond superstreet status.

What is surprising is that the improvements between Hamlet and Laurinburg are still unfunded, which IS part of the corridor. How many decades has it been since they've proposed all these "future interstate" improvements?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 12:24:23 PM
^

I don’t see any reason to eliminate I-73, but agreed with I-74.

US-74 should be its own unified corridor between I-26 and Wilmington. The state intends to eventually upgraded to remainder to interstate standards, but there’s no official designation planned west of Rockingham (besides the I-485 and I-85 overlap for through traffic), then obviously I-74 east of Rockingham. IMO, an I-3x would be appropriate all the way through.

Replace I-74 between I-77 and I-73 with an I-x73 or I-x77.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 30, 2021, 01:04:06 PM
Could I-140 be extended to Myrtle Beach until I-99 is signed?

Didn't realize we were in Fictional!  AFAIK, there's never been any mention outside those threads about a I-99 on the Carolina Coast!  Yeah, it's likely that somewhere down the line NCDOT will propose a US 17 upgrade to Interstate status throughout the state -- but at this time any numerical designation would be speculative at best. 

Actually this has been formally studied, including using I-99 as the designation: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf

Seems like North Carolina has changed its stance on US 17 and its improvements since 2006.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 30, 2021, 01:49:50 PM
It’s been studied, but it’s not necessarily been approved or formally discussed within North Carolina circles. It was more Virginia asking, hey are you interested if we do this, and they said maybe. I’m sure they’d be all over it if it was official, but internally hasn’t developed any corridor. I’m surprised it hasn’t happened yet, IMO.

As of this rate, the only part of US-17 that is apart of any future interstate corridor would be I-87 north of Williamston. Nothing else officially planned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 30, 2021, 02:17:01 PM
Could I-140 be extended to Myrtle Beach until I-99 is signed?

Didn't realize we were in Fictional!  AFAIK, there's never been any mention outside those threads about a I-99 on the Carolina Coast!  Yeah, it's likely that somewhere down the line NCDOT will propose a US 17 upgrade to Interstate status throughout the state -- but at this time any numerical designation would be speculative at best. 

Actually this has been formally studied, including using I-99 as the designation: http://www.virginiadot.org/projects/resources/I-99_Final_Report_-_VDOT_website.pdf

Seems like North Carolina has changed its stance on US 17 and its improvements since 2006.

The corridor that became the pending I-87, including the portion of US 17 from Williamston north to the VA state line, had been around as an official entity since 1991, when it was designated within the first batch of High Priority Corridors as part of that year's ISTEA act.  The section of 17 south from there, while currently being developed in a more or less "piecemeal" fashion -- to varying standards -- has yet to be considered as a whole project, at least in terms of joining the other in-state future Interstate corridors designated so far.  If and when that occurs is yet TBD. 

Nevertheless, it seems Interstate status for that original 1991 corridor (HPC #13) was being considered within NCDOT from the beginning; construction of US 64 as a freeway had proceeded east to Tarboro at the time of the ISTEA passage -- but not to Interstate standards (lack of shoulders among other deficiencies).  But the section from Tarboro east to US 17, and the Williamston bypass, were constructed to Interstate standards.  One supposes that they reasoned that they could simply upgrade the previous construction when push came to shove regarding the actual field signage of the route -- similarly to what MS did with I-22 within that state. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 30, 2021, 02:21:42 PM
I-74 won't be extended. But I do agree it needs to go since it's way out of the grid. But I think we can talk about doing that once the northern beltway is complete. This will end up being our longest 3-digit interstate.

For Charlotte and Wilmington, why can't we use I-30? That number was proposed before.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on May 30, 2021, 02:55:26 PM
I-74 won't be extended. But I do agree it needs to go since it's way out of the grid. But I think we can talk about doing that once the northern beltway is complete. This will end up being our longest 3-digit interstate.

For Charlotte and Wilmington, why can't we use I-30? That number was proposed before.

Because (a) it's already in use in TX/AR and (b) there are plenty of even designations between 28 and 38 -- in fact, all of them save 30 -- that could be used for that corridor.  And there's no NC 36 at present; so it's likely that if a singular Interstate corridor were to be proposed/adopted for US 74, that number would be at the top of the list as a designation for such, even if I-74 were to persist and such a designation ended at Rockingham.  No need to hijack/replicate an existing number just because it ends in "0" (that's so 1957!). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 30, 2021, 03:06:46 PM
I-74 won't be extended. But I do agree it needs to go since it's way out of the grid. But I think we can talk about doing that once the northern beltway is complete. This will end up being our longest 3-digit interstate.

For Charlotte and Wilmington, why can't we use I-30? That number was proposed before.

Because (a) it's already in use in TX/AR and (b) there are plenty of even designations between 28 and 38 -- in fact, all of them save 30 -- that could be used for that corridor.  And there's no NC 36 at present; so it's likely that if a singular Interstate corridor were to be proposed/adopted for US 74, that number would be at the top of the list as a designation for such, even if I-74 were to persist and such a designation ended at Rockingham.  No need to hijack/replicate an existing number just because it ends in "0" (that's so 1957!).
So, I-36 it is!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 30, 2021, 11:15:02 PM
The latest info I have read on the I-74 corridor is that the eastern half of the Wadesboro bypass from current US 74 to US 52 is slated to begin construction in 2027 with a completion date of 2030.  The western half is currently unfunded and is not even listed in the 2020-2029 STIP.

The Wadesboro bypass is technically outside of the "I-74" corridor. I wish they'd drop both I-73 and I-74, but I won't bother ranting about that. I'm sure the Wadesboro bypass will eventually be built, but at this rate I honestly don't think the rest of U.S. 74 between the Monroe bypass and Rockingham will ever be upgraded beyond superstreet status.

What is surprising is that the improvements between Hamlet and Laurinburg are still unfunded, which IS part of the corridor. How many decades has it been since they've proposed all these "future interstate" improvements?


I-73, no since I-73 was first proposed before I-74 ever came up (malmeroads.net on I-73/I-74 has history on them if you're interested). I-74 should be replaced with I-xx or I-x73.

And because NCDOT spent most of its money on the EASTERN section of NC. that's why the section between Hamlet and Laurinburg is still unfunded. Look at I-26/I-240 improvements get delayed again and again, and so is the I-885 East End Connector in Durham and spent money on usless and unnecessary I-87 among other things. and then boom... Map Act lawsuit against them, flooding from hurricane and lack of funding showed up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2021, 08:07:22 AM
Quote
And because NCDOT spent most of its money on the EASTERN section of NC. that's why the section between Hamlet and Laurinburg is still unfunded.
US-74 is a limited access highway with right of way reserved for future interchanges on its eastern segments, they’ve merely been spending $5 - $10 million for each individual interchanges in piecemeal fashion over the last decade to complete the gaps and provide a continuous freeway for a long distance. The Hamlet to Laurinburg stretch is a small segment and entirely non limited access. A couple hundred million at minimum. Not saying it’s not needed, but there’s more incentive to spend a few million for each interchange on the eastern segment and eventually have a hundred of miles of continuous freeway.

Quote
I-87 among other things.
Technically, no funding has of yet been allocated to upgrade any portion of US-64 or US-17 to interstate standards outside of routine resurfacing projects.

The state plans to complete US-64 first, IMO they would get more bang for their buck upgrading US-17 first because it would at least expand the percentage of the route that is freeway.

I see value in having a limited access connection between Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 31, 2021, 10:28:06 AM
I guess I-73 can work, especially if it ever makes it to Myrtle Beach. It just seems silly to have all of these primary interstate route designations for relatively short intrastate highways.

If/when U.S. 74 receives a 2di or 3di designation, the exit numbers should work out pretty well from a memory/learning perspective, at least from I-26 to I-85. Just drop the first two digits. Exit 161 becomes Exit 1, Exit 163 becomes Exit 3, etc.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2021, 10:57:48 AM
I guess I-73 can work, especially if it ever makes it to Myrtle Beach. It just seems silly to have all of these primary interstate route designations for relatively short intrastate highways.
I-73 is a continuous interstate highway for over 100 miles from north of Greensboro to Rockingham.

Likely, it’ll ultimately get constructed from Roanoke at I-81 to Myrtle Beach. There’s zero chance it’s going further north. It’ll be a stretch if Virginia or South Carolina ever build it, but at least the efforts to get it built are still very alive in those states.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 31, 2021, 04:57:18 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6136486,-77.6606846,3a,31.4y,147.62h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wNbslBQkXzIhYiAB5SX_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Divided highway begins. Doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2021, 05:58:38 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6136486,-77.6606846,3a,31.4y,147.62h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wNbslBQkXzIhYiAB5SX_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Divided highway begins. Doesn't make sense.
I think they used the wrong sign…
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 31, 2021, 06:41:03 PM
FWIW:
(1) It's always popular on the Forum to propose making all of US 17 in NC an interstate, but the evidence on the ground is that NCDOT plans to convert much of it to superstreet status with interchanges and freeway sections where needed.

(2) I'm convinced someone in the political world will seize on the idea of making US 74 an interstate all the way from I-26 to Wilmington. But I've thought that for awhile now and it hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 31, 2021, 06:50:47 PM
FWIW:
(1) It's always popular on the Forum to propose making all of US 17 in NC an interstate, but the evidence on the ground is that NCDOT plans to convert much of it to superstreet status with interchanges and freeway sections where needed.
Their long range plans show a full freeway facility down the length of US-17, however it is true that most of the projects center on widening. It’s likely planned to later upgrade those areas is my guess.

Much of US-17 was widened to 4 lanes north of Williamston after HPC 13 was authorized in the 90s, not build to freeway standards except where needed, and is only now going to be upgraded in the coming decade or two to full interstate standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on May 31, 2021, 08:16:23 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6136486,-77.6606846,3a,31.4y,147.62h,85.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3wNbslBQkXzIhYiAB5SX_Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Divided highway begins. Doesn't make sense.
I think they used the wrong sign…
Seems so.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 31, 2021, 08:24:19 PM
Quote
And because NCDOT spent most of its money on the EASTERN section of NC. that's why the section between Hamlet and Laurinburg is still unfunded.
US-74 is a limited access highway with right of way reserved for future interchanges on its eastern segments, they’ve merely been spending $5 - $10 million for each individual interchanges in piecemeal fashion over the last decade to complete the gaps and provide a continuous freeway for a long distance. The Hamlet to Laurinburg stretch is a small segment and entirely non limited access. A couple hundred million at minimum. Not saying it’s not needed, but there’s more incentive to spend a few million for each interchange on the eastern segment and eventually have a hundred of miles of continuous freeway.

Quote
I-87 among other things.
Technically, no funding has of yet been allocated to upgrade any portion of US-64 or US-17 to interstate standards outside of routine resurfacing projects.

The state plans to complete US-64 first, IMO they would get more bang for their buck upgrading US-17 first because it would at least expand the percentage of the route that is freeway.

I see value in having a limited access connection between Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh.


I wasn't just talking about US 74, US 64 corridors. I am talking about various projects in the eastern NC.

And even though you see value in I-87, I don't.

The projects that has been on the list for the last 10-20 years should be finished FIRST instead of putting them on hold.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on June 01, 2021, 01:45:29 PM
Quote
And because NCDOT spent most of its money on the EASTERN section of NC. that's why the section between Hamlet and Laurinburg is still unfunded.
US-74 is a limited access highway with right of way reserved for future interchanges on its eastern segments, they’ve merely been spending $5 - $10 million for each individual interchanges in piecemeal fashion over the last decade to complete the gaps and provide a continuous freeway for a long distance. The Hamlet to Laurinburg stretch is a small segment and entirely non limited access. A couple hundred million at minimum. Not saying it’s not needed, but there’s more incentive to spend a few million for each interchange on the eastern segment and eventually have a hundred of miles of continuous freeway.

Quote
I-87 among other things.
Technically, no funding has of yet been allocated to upgrade any portion of US-64 or US-17 to interstate standards outside of routine resurfacing projects.

The state plans to complete US-64 first, IMO they would get more bang for their buck upgrading US-17 first because it would at least expand the percentage of the route that is freeway.

I see value in having a limited access connection between Hampton Roads, I-95, and Raleigh.


I wasn't just talking about US 74, US 64 corridors. I am talking about various projects in the eastern NC.

And even though you see value in I-87, I don't.

The projects that has been on the list for the last 10-20 years should be finished FIRST instead of putting them on hold.

The sole reason I-87 (still grimace when that number appears!) was designated as a full corridor encompassing both parts of US 64 and US 17 was that it was an existing federally designated high-priority corridor (#13, from the original batch from 1991/ISTEA); it was a simple process to append a "future Interstate" label to the original legislation congressionally in 2016.  Of course, it wasn't a unilateral move by NC's congressional delegation; NCDOT and their in-state political handlers were knee-deep in the process.  There was a push to put an Interstate across NE NC for regional benefit; the previously-designated corridor was an obvious candidate for such, as it connected two metro areas lacking a direct Interstate connection (not that the corridor is the most direct route; it obviously is not!).  That's basically it in a nutshell -- a "political animal", with the prospects for development reasonably good due to the fact that about two-thirds of it is already freeway (not all Interstate standard, but upgradable).  But OTOH, no one's in a particular hurry to widen/pave the shoulders in the substandard zones, so it'll probably retain its "future" status for the time being.  I fully agree that the corridors designated and planned first should get first crack at funding -- but unfortunately the "squeaky wheel" of localized politics tends to override those considerations, so things like projects along the 2016-designated I-42 corridor seem to be humming along while portions of the I-74 corridor, dating from 1995, languish unfunded and/or un-let.     
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 03, 2021, 12:46:44 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46? I also wouldn't be surprised if US 321 gets an Interstate designation. Maybe North Carolina will give the US 1 corridor southwest of Raleigh another attempt at joining the Interstate System?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 01:38:06 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46? I also wouldn't be surprised if US 321 gets an Interstate designation. Maybe North Carolina will give the US 1 corridor southwest of Raleigh another attempt at joining the Interstate System?
US-74 between I-26 and I-73.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on June 03, 2021, 09:49:59 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 10:01:10 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 04, 2021, 09:30:13 AM
https://www.witn.com/2021/06/03/three-killed-in-crash-that-closes-us-264-in-pitt-county/

Sad news. I know one of those students that were killed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 04, 2021, 09:05:58 PM
I-26 was literally a parking lot for several hours this morning. Traffic was backed up more than 10 miles into South Carolina at one point due to a tractor-trailer that overturned in “the dip” between MM 62 and 61 shortly before 8:00 AM. Unfortunately, this has been the location of numerous tractor-trailer incidents over the years, including a fuel tanker that overturned and caught fire last October, also closing down the interstate for several hours.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/9jquXF1v3oHMGp157r/giphy.gif)

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/WvkZfRJ0gmYUo6VP34/giphy.gif)

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/xfqu15VwE8FfU6cTkJ/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 08, 2021, 09:32:50 PM
Same crap, different day on I-26. Gotta love the people turning around and using the median crossover.

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/wxs7tZlMUvjibka2K8/giphy.gif?cid=790b761186951447f4b114eea81677f1dd56856710585928&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/q9UmaRmlMpYcu3nntP/giphy.gif?cid=790b761162a95af6a507e96f2ac9e0adb6d566d4b02b1500&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/GLASko66kNrhpi2PcV/giphy.gif?cid=790b761199636ab8dfa4a28068e76f83d81f3561c33be7cf&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 13, 2021, 11:46:49 AM
So, this shows the list of funded projects?

https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemM.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 13, 2021, 05:27:17 PM
So, this shows the list of funded projects?

https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/ItemM.pdf

This appears to show projects approved for funding at the June meeting.

I don't read this to be the entire list of funded DOT projects going on in North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 15, 2021, 12:09:54 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7801227,-78.1194657,3a,40.7y,210.92h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJJX1gqS8zAjRFq_0neql-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Will this bridge get replaced?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 15, 2021, 03:02:55 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7801227,-78.1194657,3a,40.7y,210.92h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJJX1gqS8zAjRFq_0neql-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Will this bridge get replaced?

Not likely.  Since NCDOT Rail Division manages the entire railroad crossing program (including grade separations), these types of overpasses don't generally qualify for the same type of improvements I've seen in other states.  If trucks keep hitting the overpass (in this case, the protective I-beam), that often drives the railroad crazy and may result in a clearance improvement project similar to the famous Gregson Street "canopener" bridge in downtown Durham.  See 11foot8.com (http://11foot8.com) for more fun details on this topic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BrianP on June 15, 2021, 03:55:32 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7801227,-78.1194657,3a,40.7y,210.92h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJJX1gqS8zAjRFq_0neql-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Will this bridge get replaced?

Not likely.  Since NCDOT Rail Division manages the entire railroad crossing program (including grade separations), these types of overpasses don't generally qualify for the same type of improvements I've seen in other states.  If trucks keep hitting the overpass (in this case, the protective I-beam), that often drives the railroad crazy and may result in a clearance improvement project similar to the famous Gregson Street "canopener" bridge in downtown Durham.  See 11foot8.com (http://11foot8.com) for more fun details on this topic.
Agreed.  There is a clearly signed truck route in this case.  Also this is a small town so there is likely not many trucks using that route.  And that bridge is more clearly a low clearance that it seems much less likely to not be noticed. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 16, 2021, 12:08:05 AM
In Vance and Warren counties, when will the bridges be replaced?

I'm talking about I-85 btw.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 12:10:31 AM
In Vance and Warren counties, when will the bridges be replaced?

I'm talking about I-85 btw.
Which bridges specifically?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 16, 2021, 12:21:36 AM
In Vance and Warren counties, when will the bridges be replaced?

I'm talking about I-85 btw.
Which bridges specifically?
These.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4066919,-78.3268286,3a,75y,37.93h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAtFzZgTmSVw1tIpTeAIlJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4305974,-78.2958021,3a,75y,52.72h,90.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU07d_TdFVgvJRwWVQJhaWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544645,-78.2663969,3a,75y,33.58h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFBN1HuVb4PzlPH9O-V8tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4844307,-78.2312673,3a,75y,46.08h,83.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD8TYBxrJy2wvWOXyqWWdxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5344733,-78.1911262,3a,75y,30.6h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eF9WxrXrapKkr-B1Wdk6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

They are old, and rundown.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 16, 2021, 06:21:18 AM
Quote
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7801227,-78.1194657,3a,40.7y,210.92h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJJX1gqS8zAjRFq_0neql-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Will this bridge get replaced?

Highly doubtful.  NC 581 was officially rerouted onto its truck route through Bailey in 2015 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_12.pdf) but signage has not been changed.

Quote
Quote from: sprjus4 on Today at 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on Today at 12:08:05 AM
In Vance and Warren counties, when will the bridges be replaced?

I'm talking about I-85 btw.
Which bridges specifically?
These.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4066919,-78.3268286,3a,75y,37.93h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAtFzZgTmSVw1tIpTeAIlJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4305974,-78.2958021,3a,75y,52.72h,90.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU07d_TdFVgvJRwWVQJhaWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544645,-78.2663969,3a,75y,33.58h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFBN1HuVb4PzlPH9O-V8tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4844307,-78.2312673,3a,75y,46.08h,83.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD8TYBxrJy2wvWOXyqWWdxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5344733,-78.1911262,3a,75y,30.6h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eF9WxrXrapKkr-B1Wdk6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

They are old, and rundown.

Can't be in very bad shape...they just finished rebuilding I-85 in this area.  If the bridges were in bad shape they would've replaced them then.  One they did replace are the I-85 bridges at Exit 220.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 16, 2021, 08:29:26 AM
Quote
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7801227,-78.1194657,3a,40.7y,210.92h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJJX1gqS8zAjRFq_0neql-A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Will this bridge get replaced?

Highly doubtful.  NC 581 was officially rerouted onto its truck route through Bailey in 2015 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2015_08_12.pdf) but signage has not been changed.

Quote
Quote from: sprjus4 on Today at 12:10:31 AM
Quote from: tolbs17 on Today at 12:08:05 AM
In Vance and Warren counties, when will the bridges be replaced?

I'm talking about I-85 btw.
Which bridges specifically?
These.

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4066919,-78.3268286,3a,75y,37.93h,79.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAtFzZgTmSVw1tIpTeAIlJA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4305974,-78.2958021,3a,75y,52.72h,90.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU07d_TdFVgvJRwWVQJhaWA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4544645,-78.2663969,3a,75y,33.58h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siFBN1HuVb4PzlPH9O-V8tw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.4844307,-78.2312673,3a,75y,46.08h,83.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sD8TYBxrJy2wvWOXyqWWdxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5344733,-78.1911262,3a,75y,30.6h,87.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-eF9WxrXrapKkr-B1Wdk6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1

They are old, and rundown.

Can't be in very bad shape...they just finished rebuilding I-85 in this area.  If the bridges were in bad shape they would've replaced them then.  One they did replace are the I-85 bridges at Exit 220.
they have the 1950 and 1960s design. So they are not going to replace them?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 16, 2021, 08:45:42 AM

they have the 1950 and 1960s design. So they are not going to replace them?

You'd have to ask NCDOT or search the STIP for a definitive answer but IMO if they wanted to replace them they would have done so when rebuilding I-85 within the last few years.  While they are older, they look to be in ok shape.  Most of them don't see much truck traffic, I imagine.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 10:14:16 AM
^

They may be old, but given low traffic volumes, they are likely in adequate shape. As Mapmikey mentioned above, they would've been replaced otherwise apart of the I-85 reconstruction.

The mainline bridges were replaced in that project (much heavier traffic, obviously) not crossing roads though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on June 16, 2021, 10:37:25 AM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 16, 2021, 10:40:43 AM
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
340 is one of those 3di numbers that I'm sort of surprised haven't been used yet. Same with 570, and fun fact: I-70 is the only x0 2di without a 5xx 3di, and one of two x0 and x5 (along with I-25) that doesn't have a 5xx.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 10:45:51 AM
^ I-545 doesn’t exist either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 16, 2021, 12:34:25 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 16, 2021, 12:57:46 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 16, 2021, 01:07:48 PM
Honestly, screw the entire first digit rule for 3dis, it’s already inconsistent enough with today’s examples. Unlike with the odd-even rule for 2dis, bet a good portion of the the public probably don’t know about the 3dis rule..
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 16, 2021, 02:59:51 PM
^

They may be old, but given low traffic volumes, they are likely in adequate shape. As Mapmikey mentioned above, they would've been replaced otherwise apart of the I-85 reconstruction.

The mainline bridges were replaced in that project (much heavier traffic, obviously) not crossing roads though.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4412691,-80.626392,3a,75y,70.85h,95.38t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDmrByjcVTEObAtudYOM05w!2e0!5s20190901T000000!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Here too!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 16, 2021, 06:15:59 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.
This question comes up (understandably) in the Forum from time to time. Briefly: when the northern arc of the loop was designed NCDOT asked for the 640 designation. The Feds would not approve that because the northern arc didn't end at an interstate (now it does: I-87). So they insisted on 540. After a decade or two of everyone in the area calling the road 540 NCDOT doesn't see any good reason to change the number just to satisfy road geeks like us.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 16, 2021, 06:34:23 PM
This question comes up (understandably) in the Forum from time to time. Briefly: when the northern arc of the loop was designed NCDOT asked for the 640 designation. The Feds would not approve that because the northern arc didn't end at an interstate (now it does: I-87). So they insisted on 540. After a decade or two of everyone in the area calling the road 540 NCDOT doesn't see any good reason to change the number just to satisfy road geeks like us.
Sounds like AASHTO was being picky in the exact opposite way as the St Louis beltway numbering. Back when that was getting its number, and only the western section was built, MoDOT wanted I-144, but AASHTO gave I-244 instead (now I-270) because they knew that it'll eventually become a (partial) beltway. I'm not sure if NCDOT had plans to extend I-540 into a beltway back then, but if they had, I have no clue why AASHTO rejected the I-640 number knowing about those plans.

My own guess with 540 over 640 is that 640 would get confused with US 64 in the area. Not sure how true it is, but it works for me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2021, 07:15:21 PM
Also since only the portion of 540 from Interstate 40 (West Junction) to Interstate 87 over the northern half of the beltway will be an Interstate (the rest, of course, will be NC 540), maybe an odd first digit was appropriate after all. However, I still agree that 540 should have been Interstate/NC 640 to begin with; the 540 designation should have been saved for another corridor, such as the US 1 corridor southwest of Raleigh, or the Wade Avenue Freeway corridor. Of course that is assuming either corridor would be approved as Interstates to begin with.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 16, 2021, 09:09:31 PM
This question comes up (understandably) in the Forum from time to time. Briefly: when the northern arc of the loop was designed NCDOT asked for the 640 designation. The Feds would not approve that because the northern arc didn't end at an interstate (now it does: I-87). So they insisted on 540. After a decade or two of everyone in the area calling the road 540 NCDOT doesn't see any good reason to change the number just to satisfy road geeks like us.

Sounds like AASHTO was being picky in the exact opposite way as the St Louis beltway numbering. Back when that was getting its number, and only the western section was built, MoDOT wanted I-144, but AASHTO gave I-244 instead (now I-270) because they knew that it'll eventually become a (partial) beltway. I'm not sure if NCDOT had plans to extend I-540 into a beltway back then, but if they had, I have no clue why AASHTO rejected the I-640 number knowing about those plans.

My own guess with 540 over 640 is that 640 would get confused with US 64 in the area. Not sure how true it is, but it works for me.

Also, hardly anybody ever expected the explosion in the local population.  The 1990 U.S. Census pegged Raleigh at 220K and Wake at 426K.  The 2020 Estimate show Raleigh at 474K and Wake at just over 1.1M.  During the same time, North Carolina went from just under 1.9M to 10.6M.  In the process, our clout with the other states at AASHTO has increased significantly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 17, 2021, 02:47:47 AM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.

I think for simplicity it will be, especially after 540's bonds are paid off.

NC once got permission to toll I-95 and in the interest of public safety and understanding I predict the complete loop will have one name and hopefully I-640.

Remember Wake Forest Rd in Raleigh got renamed, used to be OLD WAKE FOREST RD. and Capital Blvd. used to be just NORTH BLVD.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 17, 2021, 02:57:15 AM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.
This question comes up (understandably) in the Forum from time to time. Briefly: when the northern arc of the loop was designed NCDOT asked for the 640 designation. The Feds would not approve that because the northern arc didn't end at an interstate (now it does: I-87). So they insisted on 540. After a decade or two of everyone in the area calling the road 540 NCDOT doesn't see any good reason to change the number just to satisfy road geeks like us.

But that's not the problem.

I-540 and NC540 being one loop isn't clear to the public who rely on the red white and blue quite a lot.

I wouldn't care if the completed loop was I-540 because I'll bet over 90% of the public doesn't think about or even know that even and odd first numbers indicate different capabilities or end destinations of interstates.

Hell even DOTs like in Ohio will sign a road using different shields ( state, US, county) on a single numbered route through the state.

However I think red, white and blue with one number for a full loop is essential in conveying its loop capabilities to the public which is why we build loops at all  to connect to every other road around a city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 17, 2021, 01:16:25 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.

I think for simplicity it will be, especially after 540's bonds are paid off.

NC once got permission to toll I-95 and in the interest of public safety and understanding I predict the complete loop will have one name and hopefully I-640.

Remember Wake Forest Rd in Raleigh got renamed, used to be OLD WAKE FOREST RD. and Capital Blvd. used to be just NORTH BLVD.


There are no plans to change from 540 to I-640, even after the bonds are paid off, or else it would have been already mentioned. So, the loop is going to stay I-540/NC540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on June 17, 2021, 09:05:23 PM
I wonder which corridor that isn't yet planned to become an Interstate corridor might become one in the future? Perhaps the US 421 corridor between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem will be proposed as an Interstate 46?

If anything, make that a I-x77 instead.  Way too short for a 2di IMO.
I’d argue it doesn’t even need a designation. It doesn’t really connect any major population centers to warrant one. Perhaps a 3di if desired, however. The US-421 freeway would need upgrading, given its age in many areas.
I-340 would be a better fit for this corridor. Why that number wasn't used before I-540 or even I-140 is puzzling to me.
Can't I-540 just be renumbed to I-640 already?
It’s never going to happen, for a number of reasons. It frankly, doesn’t need to be.

I think for simplicity it will be, especially after 540's bonds are paid off.

NC once got permission to toll I-95 and in the interest of public safety and understanding I predict the complete loop will have one name and hopefully I-640.

Remember Wake Forest Rd in Raleigh got renamed, used to be OLD WAKE FOREST RD. and Capital Blvd. used to be just NORTH BLVD.


There are no plans to change from 540 to I-640, even after the bonds are paid off, or else it would have been already mentioned. So, the loop is going to stay I-540/NC540.

I say once the bonds are paid off, they should apply to make the entire thing I-540. If that gets rejected, they should just pull an MD 695 and sign it I-540 anyway. :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 18, 2021, 12:31:50 AM
I was thinking the rules are the odd numbers are for spurs and the even numbers are for bypasses (and business routes) and beltways.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 18, 2021, 12:36:48 AM
I was thinking the rules are the odd numbers are for spurs and the even numbers are for bypasses (and business routes) and beltways.
Those are the general rules, but there’s obviously many exceptions. I-540 / NC-540 is one of them. Also look at I-520. It’s not a new thing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 18, 2021, 01:31:50 AM
I was thinking the rules are the odd numbers are for spurs and the even numbers are for bypasses (and business routes) and beltways.
Those are the general rules, but there’s obviously many exceptions. I-540 / NC-540 is one of them. Also look at I-520. It’s not a new thing.
Non-roadgeeks wouldn't care.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2021, 10:53:05 AM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

I-376 recently came into fame in PA as it was originally a spur. Now extended over I-279, US 22& 30, and PA 60.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 18, 2021, 05:52:24 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

I-376 recently came into fame in PA as it was originally a spur. Now extended over I-279, US 22& 30, and PA 60.
I-376 is almost 85 miles long. Somebody in the Forum knows: what is the longest 3di?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kevinb1994 on June 18, 2021, 05:56:30 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

I-376 recently came into fame in PA as it was originally a spur. Now extended over I-279, US 22& 30, and PA 60.
I-376 is almost 85 miles long. Somebody in the Forum knows: what is the longest 3di?
I-476! Whenever I-369 in Texas is finished though, that one will beat it. I have read that there was a period where I-495 in Massachusetts was the longest.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 18, 2021, 07:17:03 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 18, 2021, 07:31:06 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
So, where will I-640 go?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 18, 2021, 07:36:31 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
So, where will I-640 go?
Knoxville
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 18, 2021, 08:06:05 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on June 18, 2021, 08:21:22 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

I-376 recently came into fame in PA as it was originally a spur. Now extended over I-279, US 22& 30, and PA 60.
I-376 is almost 85 miles long. Somebody in the Forum knows: what is the longest 3di?
I-476! Whenever I-369 in Texas is finished though, that one will beat it. I have read that there was a period where I-495 in Massachusetts was the longest.
I don’t have the exact miles, but I think 476 will still take the cake. Barely. A quick google map rn says Texarkana to Tenaha is 115 mi following US 59 as opposed to I 476’s 132.1 mi length. 476 is both a partial suburban belt thing and a ridiculously long spur to Scranton, so it’s a touch longer than it even seems it is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 18, 2021, 08:29:32 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.
And if I-140 gets extended, It should go on the Carolina Bays Parkway. ALL of it. It will end at SC-707.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 18, 2021, 08:30:46 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.

I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.

Sorry for not being more clear.  Was eluding to NC-140 north/east of I-40/I-140, of which NCDOT doesn't seem terribly interested in changing the signage.  Perhaps this will all change once the Hampstead Bypass is completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 18, 2021, 08:34:42 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.
And if I-140 gets extended, It should go on the Carolina Bays Parkway. ALL of it. It will end at SC-707.
That would be super long of an extension for what is currently a partial beltway around a small city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 18, 2021, 08:40:31 PM
And if I-140 gets extended, It should go on the Carolina Bays Parkway. ALL of it. It will end at SC-707.

That would be super long of an extension for what is currently a partial beltway around a small city.

The only thing that would stop I-140 from getting extended to Myrtle Beach is if NCDOT decides not to upgrade US-17 to Interstate standards (which is often the case).  That route would benefit South Carolina more than North Carolina, but also would likely result in Wilmington being more attractive to large businesses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 18, 2021, 08:44:52 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.
And if I-140 gets extended, It should go on the Carolina Bays Parkway. ALL of it. It will end at SC-707.
That would be super long of an extension for what is currently a partial beltway around a small city.
Incase they don't designate I-97 or I-99 on the route. And I KNOW I-74 would be a stupid move.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on June 18, 2021, 08:50:18 PM
I -526 in SC. It seems SC does it twice.

Not quite.  I-526 may be a bypass of Charleston, but it is a double spur of its parent I-26.  I presume that I-140 around Wilmington will eventually do the same thing.
I-140 only connects to I-40 in one place. I-40 ends just south of I-140.
And if I-140 gets extended, It should go on the Carolina Bays Parkway. ALL of it. It will end at SC-707.
That would be super long of an extension for what is currently a partial beltway around a small city.
Incase they don't designate I-97 or I-99 on the route. And I KNOW I-74 would be a stupid move.
Yes it is a stupid move. Also, I-74 shouldn't even exist in NC in the first place. Call the US 74 portion I-34 or I-36, allows it to be extended west to Charlotte and Asheville in the future too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 28, 2021, 04:50:46 PM
About damn time. Those roads are horrible.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-25-pitt-county-road-refresh.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 28, 2021, 09:19:55 PM
And more all-way stops coming...

https://www.wnct.com/local-news/two-pitt-county-roads-to-convert-to-all-way-stops-starting-tuesday/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 29, 2021, 09:24:31 AM
NCDOT did one of those all-way stops on a road local to my relatives in Johnston County. Makes zero sense. I suggested a roundabout..... there is room for one. If they really wanted to improve safety on these state secondaries, they need to actually fix the problems. Better sight lines and intersection geometry go a long way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 29, 2021, 03:19:29 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract for improvements to I-95 in Nash County. Work includes replacing two overpasses in order to accommodate a future widening of I-95, as well as improving the NC-4 (Exit 145) interchange in Gold Rock. Work is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on June 29, 2021, 04:10:39 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract for improvements to I-95 in Nash County. Work includes replacing two overpasses in order to accommodate a future widening of I-95, as well as improving the NC-4 (Exit 145) interchange in Gold Rock. Work is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx)

Any project maps out yet for Gold Rock? Will be interesting to see what this will look like.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2021, 04:29:08 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract for improvements to I-95 in Nash County. Work includes replacing two overpasses in order to accommodate a future widening of I-95, as well as improving the NC-4 (Exit 145) interchange in Gold Rock. Work is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx)

Any project maps out yet for Gold Rock? Will be interesting to see what this will look like.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/NASH_47617.3.1_B-5980ETC_C204350/B-5980/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

Looks like they are converting to a diamond with roundabouts
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 29, 2021, 06:18:44 PM
NCDOT did one of those all-way stops on a road local to my relatives in Johnston County. Makes zero sense. I suggested a roundabout..... there is room for one. If they really wanted to improve safety on these state secondaries, they need to actually fix the problems. Better sight lines and intersection geometry go a long way.
Of course, if an intersection is a problem (complaints, accidents) then putting up stop signs is something you can do immediately. It doesn't prevent a better solution later, but someone has to advocate for that better solution.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 29, 2021, 07:43:23 PM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 29, 2021, 08:24:01 PM
Is the southwest bypass winning the game here?

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Wilmington,+NC/Virginia+Beach,+VA/@35.5283807,-77.3635232,8.5z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89a9f5a20debaed5:0x5e66493884093032!2m2!1d-77.8868117!2d34.2103894!1m5!1m1!1s0x89bac1e8fc1527a7:0x4161080a32e0173!2m2!1d-75.977985!2d36.8529263!3e0!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2021, 08:24:36 PM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.

How is a simple trumpet to a newly constructed connector overbuilt?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 29, 2021, 08:25:36 PM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.

How is a simple trumpet to a newly constructed connector overbuilt?
Cause of the high speed flyover.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 30, 2021, 06:24:16 AM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.



How is a simple trumpet to a newly constructed connector overbuilt?
Cause of the high speed flyover.

A 45 mph trumpet ramp is not a high speed flyover.  But even if it was, how else would you have gotten I-95 SB traffic over to the other side?  A diamond interchange with no road to the right (west)?  A clover ramp (I guess that's a low speed flyover then)?

It's actually a good thing this interchange was built this way - all 95 SB traffic had to exit here for 11 years.

edited to fix quote legibility
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on June 30, 2021, 09:40:37 AM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.

It was overbuilt because it at one time was the connection from US-301 to I-95. When 95 was being built between Kenly and Rocky Mount, exit 145 was the connection to US-301. That's why there was a super-long business route between Kenly (exit 107) and Gold Rock (exit 145)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 30, 2021, 10:55:59 AM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.



How is a simple trumpet to a newly constructed connector overbuilt?
Cause of the high speed flyover.

A 45 mph trumpet ramp is not a high speed flyover.  But even if it was, how else would you have gotten I-95 SB traffic over to the other side?  A diamond interchange with no road to the right (west)?  A clover ramp (I guess that's a low speed flyover then)?

It's actually a good thing this interchange was built this way - all 95 SB traffic had to exit here for 11 years.

edited to fix quote legibility
Yes, because that's where I-95 used to terminate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 30, 2021, 10:57:41 AM
Would be a good idea, that interchange looks overbuilt and old.



How is a simple trumpet to a newly constructed connector overbuilt?
Cause of the high speed flyover.

A 45 mph trumpet ramp is not a high speed flyover.  But even if it was, how else would you have gotten I-95 SB traffic over to the other side?  A diamond interchange with no road to the right (west)?  A clover ramp (I guess that's a low speed flyover then)?

It's actually a good thing this interchange was built this way - all 95 SB traffic had to exit here for 11 years.

edited to fix quote legibility
Yes, because that's where I-95 used to terminate.
So it’s not overbuilt for its time…
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on June 30, 2021, 04:11:46 PM
This interchange looks fresh and nicely done. I plan on going there in the next 10 days!

Also, they DID leave room for future express lanes as I can see.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 03, 2021, 09:34:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2021, 09:45:57 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
It’s debatable if I’d call it a true freeway, but it can certainly be called such. It’s a 3 mile two-to-four lane highway segment that’s fully limited access and has one full interchange in the middle.

Your reasons for it not being built to freeway standards aren’t valid. A freeway can have a narrow median and a freeway isn’t required to have a cable barrier. Some sections of the segment in question is only 2 lane undivided, that could still technically be a freeway.

A freeway simply means it’s a limited access segment with access provided only at interchanges, no at grade crossings or connections permitted, they must be through overpass bridges and ramps. This segment meets that criteria.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on July 03, 2021, 09:51:31 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
Those standards are specifically for interstate freeways. Not sure if non-interstate freeways have standards besides that it have to be limited access and maybe the 3.6 m lane width.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 03, 2021, 09:57:06 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
Those standards are specifically for interstate freeways. Not sure if non-interstate freeways have standards besides that it have to be limited access and maybe the 3.6 m lane width.
See the Maysville bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 03, 2021, 09:57:47 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
Those standards are specifically for interstate freeways. Not sure if non-interstate freeways have standards besides that it have to be limited access and maybe the 3.6 m lane width.
See the Maysville bypass.
What about it?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: SkyPesos on July 03, 2021, 10:00:48 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3853648,-76.9489962,3a,65y,21.56h,73.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjPX47Q2KtlaxqP3J9iYqFg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm guessing the shoulders are 2 feet on the left and 6 or 8 feet on the right? Looks a little odd when comparing it to this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6122027,-77.0636786,3a,75y,185.61h,75.5t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D5HjLUx8sYljHrXTxvGsahQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.93164%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656).

And definitely not built to freeway standards. Median is too small and there is no cable barrier.
Those standards are specifically for interstate freeways. Not sure if non-interstate freeways have standards besides that it have to be limited access and maybe the 3.6 m lane width.
See the Maysville bypass.
Non-interstate freeways can be built up to interstate standards if they wanted too. Not saying that they can't and have to settle for a lower standard like those seen in a lot of urban areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 06, 2021, 05:02:16 PM
When will I-85 be widened in Orange County? That segment is older than I-40 and I feel like that's a higher priority than widening I-40, but it's the states decision I guess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 06, 2021, 06:33:22 PM
When will I-85 be widened in Orange County? That segment is older than I-40 and I feel like that's a higher priority than widening I-40, but it's the states decision I guess.

You've missed all the wonderful discussion about this, much of it here in this thread.  When I moved to North Carolina more than 20 years ago, the reconstruction of I-85 between the Durham County Line and the I-40 split was #3 or #4 on NCDOT's statewide priority list.  The reconstruction of I-85 through Durham took the lead in this area and IIRC, it was active 2003 through 2005.  NCDOT District 7 delayed the repaving of I-85 for several years in anticipation of the reconstruction project, which never got started.

After I-85 was first repaved, I didn't pay much attention to the status of the I-85 widening project, but it was back in the Top 5 sometime around 2014 (rumor has it that its been on the Top 10 list for the past 22 years or so).  Now, the widening of I-40 between the Durham County Line and the I-85 split has taken the lead.

I started wondering if I-85 was going to get back in race.  NCDOT did a major surveying project back about 5 years ago, first starting on I-85 through both Hillsborough exits and looping back down I-40 all the way to Durham.  About the same time, there was a significant amount of ground work done under the overpasses for South Churton Street (Exit 164 on I-85) and at Orange Grove Road.  Then 3 years ago, NCDOT brought out a mulcher contractor and cut back the treeline along I-85 from Durham to the I-40 split, plus they cut down all the overgrowth between the lanes through Hillsborough (including the wonderful stand of Paulownia, that looks like Wisteria trees).  Before they finished, another crew started working down I-40 starting at the split.  They came back out this Spring along I-85 and cut back the brush again.  I don't know if any of this was related to the planned widening project.  But as best as I can tell, I-85 won't get widened in the foreseeable future.

This is one the few sections of Interstate highway that deserves a major improvement due to safety concerns.  There is a major accident during morning rush about every two weeks on average (except during the Summer, when traffic is lighter).  But the I-40 side garners much more of the RTP traffic, and it gets a bunch of accidents as well (just none of those are design related safety issues).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on July 06, 2021, 10:08:05 PM
When will I-85 be widened in Orange County? That segment is older than I-40 and I feel like that's a higher priority than widening I-40, but it's the states decision I guess.
I go between exit 165 and 178 a lot. I have seen more than one serious accident that blocks the entire highway, due to how narrow the road is. It can get sketchy when traffic gets heavy. Widening would not be an easy task though. there are some steep embankments like at the bridge over the railroad at exit 165. It would require lots of earthwork and Right of way. Both exits in Hillsborough would have to be completely redone as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 08, 2021, 10:17:13 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 09, 2021, 12:55:41 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0630255,-79.6088891,3a,15y,302.66h,99.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIFD-EDuw30oc_AtEMHdHWw!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Never seen a left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow sign here before!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on July 09, 2021, 06:56:27 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0630255,-79.6088891,3a,15y,302.66h,99.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIFD-EDuw30oc_AtEMHdHWw!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Never seen a left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow sign here before!
A slight varation of that sign is common with installations in NY.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 09, 2021, 08:55:40 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0630255,-79.6088891,3a,15y,302.66h,99.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIFD-EDuw30oc_AtEMHdHWw!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Never seen a left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow sign here before!

That is a temporary arrangement which should have been replaced by now, and I doubt the sign remained.  It's right off Exit 135.  I'm not headed that way anytime soon, otherwise I would check it out for you.  Sometimes we get to Greensboro frequently, but right now we are back in a Durham/Raleigh travel pattern.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 09, 2021, 09:54:16 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0630255,-79.6088891,3a,15y,302.66h,99.72t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sIFD-EDuw30oc_AtEMHdHWw!2e0!5s20190801T000000!7i16384!8i8192

Never seen a left turn yield on flashing yellow arrow sign here before!
A slight varation of that sign is common with installations in NY.

Also common in VA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 09, 2021, 10:04:00 AM
MnDOT's default sign (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/publ/signsmanual/2020/r-regulatory-signs.pdf#SSM%20R%20Series%20October%202020.indd%3A.206592%3A22821) is slightly different, with YIELD as its own line.  36x42 and 42x48 versions are spec'd out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 09, 2021, 06:12:14 PM
Sometime in the last year, it seems NCDOT extended the 70 mph zone on I-85 about 9 miles south to just before Exit 60 (Dale Earnhardt Blvd) in Concord, outside of Charlotte. This area was just recently expanded from 4 to 8 lanes. South of there, the speed limit remains at 65 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 09, 2021, 06:40:12 PM
Sometime in the last year, it seems NCDOT extended the 70 mph zone on I-85 about 9 miles south to just before Exit 60 (Dale Earnhardt Blvd) in Concord, outside of Charlotte. This area was just recently expanded from 4 to 8 lanes. South of there, the speed limit remains at 65 mph.
Probably cause of the high AADT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 10, 2021, 06:34:14 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on July 10, 2021, 08:31:35 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 10, 2021, 09:07:18 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
Did you drive on US-264 recently?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 10, 2021, 10:31:23 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
Did you drive on US-264 recently?
The main problem I see is that Google Maps has two of the highway links labeled as I-587.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 10, 2021, 10:47:57 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
Did you drive on US-264 recently?
The main problem I see is that Google Maps has two of the highway links labeled as I-587.  :-/
And why is that a problem?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 10, 2021, 10:58:15 PM
Because it has not yet been designated as such by FHWA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2021, 11:10:26 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
He’s saying they’re now missing or damaged, not in the Street View.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 11, 2021, 09:08:42 AM
WRAL posted an article about the old NC-98 and other old roads that are now hidden under Falls Lake.

https://wr.al/1I4Er (https://wr.al/1I4Er)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 11, 2021, 05:49:18 PM
This sign has graffiti on it. And when I was in Raleigh yesterday, it is still there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8179322,-78.6893275,3a,44y,40.73h,103.37t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfjx2hjDvfIB3Zc5ZmDKX-A!2e0!5s20180701T000000!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 11, 2021, 09:43:36 PM
Went on a quick joyride to Shelby to check out the progress of the Shelby bypass.  This is the first time I have been through the site since mid November.  The progress, to me still seems glacial.  The NC 18 Bridge is all rebarred and formed, last Nov, they were forming the center pier cap and the bench excavation for the abutments was complete.

At NC 150 the concrete girders are in place, and the rough grading of the relocated NC 180 is underway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 11, 2021, 09:47:24 PM
At NC 150 the concrete girders are in place, and the rough grading of the relocated NC 180 is underway.
Why didn't they use the nice steel ones?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 11, 2021, 09:58:28 PM
Also, IMO, the span was too narrow to ever widen NC 150 to 4 lanes, I may be wrong tho.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 11, 2021, 09:59:48 PM
Also, IMO, the span was too narrow to ever widen NC 150 to 4 lanes, I may be wrong tho.
So, that's the reason why they didn't use steel girders?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on July 12, 2021, 12:51:08 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2021, 01:01:55 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on July 12, 2021, 01:20:59 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2021, 01:46:04 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on July 12, 2021, 02:50:08 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.

A link would be helpful.  Still doesn't answer my question of why the two interchanges are related, and why if a DDI is proposed at Gorman, it affects a decision for South Saunders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2021, 03:00:42 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.

A link would be helpful.  Still doesn't answer my question of why the two interchanges are related, and why if a DDI is proposed at Gorman, it affects a decision for South Saunders.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1005A_Report_2015.pdf

Skip to page 33.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on July 12, 2021, 04:40:17 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.

A link would be helpful.  Still doesn't answer my question of why the two interchanges are related, and why if a DDI is proposed at Gorman, it affects a decision for South Saunders.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1005A_Report_2015.pdf

Skip to page 33.

OK, at least I see where/when the DDI was proposed.  I could probably get as good or better improvements with just added turn lanes on the ramps.  Couldn't do it with the I-40 rebuild because additional capacity wasn't allowed due to the NEPA rules (the auxiliary lanes on I-40 were not considered additional capacity, FYI.)

Again, still doesn't relate to why you think the recommendations at Gorman Street would mean a DDI would work at South Saunders.  Care to finally answer?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 12, 2021, 05:00:49 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.

A link would be helpful.  Still doesn't answer my question of why the two interchanges are related, and why if a DDI is proposed at Gorman, it affects a decision for South Saunders.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1005A_Report_2015.pdf

Skip to page 33.

Again, still doesn't relate to why you think the recommendations at Gorman Street would mean a DDI would work at South Saunders.  Care to finally answer?
Because See the interchange at I-75 and University parkway. They built a large DDI over there and that carries nearly the same amount of traffic as South Saunders does. The streams and how much traffic is on South Saunders is probably keeping them from building a DDI there.

Also, page 66 shows a proposed Parclo A4.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on July 12, 2021, 05:36:47 PM
https://divergingdiamond.com/item/i-40-south-saunders/

Is a DDI still proposed at this interchange?

No, the DDI was proposed by the Design-Build team rebuilding I-40 because they were temporarily removing the off-ramp loops, but the DDI would be worse than the existing Parclo-B configuration once the ramps were replaced.  Plus, there were environmental issues with the design (there's a couple of streams right next to the ramps on both the north and south sides.)
But there is one proposed at Gorman.

I'm not familiar with any study at Gorman, but regardless, a DDI working there is independent of one working (or not) at S. Saunders.  Different traffic volumes.  Why would you think they're related, other than being nearby?
From the 2016 study on the NCDOT website.

A link would be helpful.  Still doesn't answer my question of why the two interchanges are related, and why if a DDI is proposed at Gorman, it affects a decision for South Saunders.
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1005A_Report_2015.pdf

Skip to page 33.

Again, still doesn't relate to why you think the recommendations at Gorman Street would mean a DDI would work at South Saunders.  Care to finally answer?
Because See the interchange at I-75 and University parkway. They built a large DDI over there and that carries nearly the same amount of traffic as South Saunders does. The streams and how much traffic is on South Saunders is probably keeping them from building a DDI there.

The combination of the streams limiting construction space (as I mentioned earlier) and/or needing to rebuild the I-40 bridge over South Saunders to get enough width underneath, which would be very difficult, meant the DDI wasn't the answer.  (I am familiar with the I-75/University Parkway DDI.  The lead consultant (and my former boss) asked me what I thought about it as they were designing it.)

For a DDI, it might be better in the peak (not all the time, though), but enough worse in the off-peak to make it a net negative for travel time/delay.  It's not a panacea for all interchange traffic woes.

The Parclo-B (like the one at S. Saunders) is probably the most efficient interchange configuration for an at-grade cross-street.  Of course, it still might not be efficient enough (with limited laneage) to be enough to avoid traffic issues.  I see S. Saunders backed up way up the hill (heading south) in the evening when I cross over on I-40.  If I was in downtown Raleigh heading south in the evening, I'd do what I could to get over to Wilmington St. to avoid that interchange.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 14, 2021, 01:04:10 PM
The overhead signs at the I-95/I-74 interchange in Lumberton will be replaced as part of the same contract that also calls for replacing all NC-295 signs with I-295 shields in Fayetteville (as mentioned in the Fayetteville I-295 thread).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-14-07-fayettevile-signage-updated.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-14-07-fayettevile-signage-updated.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 14, 2021, 01:47:10 PM
The overhead signs at the I-95/I-74 interchange in Lumberton will be replaced as part of the same contract that also calls for replacing all NC-295 signs with I-295 shields in Fayetteville (as mentioned in the Fayetteville I-295 thread).

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-14-07-fayettevile-signage-updated.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-14-07-fayettevile-signage-updated.aspx)
I hope they do it for the US-264 interchange as well. Those signs are even older... But probably won't get replaced until I-587 is operational.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 15, 2021, 07:30:15 PM
https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/WaterResources/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=112684&page=2&cr=1

Skip to page 113 and here's the old proposal of upgrading the NC-73 I-85 interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 16, 2021, 04:49:30 PM
Meanwhile, the Welcome Center and rest area on I-85 near the VA state line closed today for renovations, which are expected to take up to 12 weeks to complete.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-13-i-85-welcome-center-rest-area-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-04-13-i-85-welcome-center-rest-area-closed.aspx)

The Welcome Center is now open. However, the rest area on I-85 North in Granville County is still closed. It's expected to reopen by August.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-07-16-i-85-welcome-center-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-07-16-i-85-welcome-center-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on July 17, 2021, 02:13:53 AM
US 29 South in Greensboro is closed this weekend between 16th street and Interstate 40.  Through traffic is routed along 785 South



https://greensboro.com/news/local/secton-of-u-s-29-south-in-greensboro-to-close-for-roadwork-this-weekend/article_5701d8d4-e67b-11eb-91f5-e328f4e53d4b.html (https://greensboro.com/news/local/secton-of-u-s-29-south-in-greensboro-to-close-for-roadwork-this-weekend/article_5701d8d4-e67b-11eb-91f5-e328f4e53d4b.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 18, 2021, 08:31:36 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
He’s saying they’re now missing or damaged, not in the Street View.
And here's more evidence.

https://www.cbs17.com/news/investigators/ncdot-says-i-440-overhead-sign-that-blew-away-in-storm-was-due-for-a-replacement/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 01:33:11 PM
Saved the highway workers a little work in removing the old signs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 19, 2021, 02:27:02 PM
I wonder why this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1271728,-77.0243247,3a,50.1y,148.62h,86.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9SqjVruCHxPJ8aGBo9G64Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) section is not posted 50 or 55 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 19, 2021, 02:47:37 PM
I wonder why this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1271728,-77.0243247,3a,50.1y,148.62h,86.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9SqjVruCHxPJ8aGBo9G64Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) section is not posted 50 or 55 mph.

It is within the Bridgerton City Limits which is where the 45 zone starts a bit north of your link.  As soon as the other side of the corporate limit is reached, it goes back up to 55.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 19, 2021, 02:54:37 PM
I wonder why this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1271728,-77.0243247,3a,50.1y,148.62h,86.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9SqjVruCHxPJ8aGBo9G64Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) section is not posted 50 or 55 mph.

It is within the Bridgerton City Limits which is where the 45 zone starts a bit north of your link.  As soon as the other side of the corporate limit is reached, it goes back up to 55.
The speed limit there is ignored though
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on July 19, 2021, 11:40:25 PM
Lol. Go ahead and ignore that speed limit and you wish you hadn't. Bridgeton has a jet black Charger with decals that are dark gray and they don't play. They can't wait for you to fly off that bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2021, 12:33:55 AM
^ His point is the speed limit is deliberately artificial low and combined with heavy enforcement, is a blatant speed trap.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on July 20, 2021, 05:37:52 PM
On the new concrete 8-lane stretch of I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro I noticed that a lot of upcoming exit signs are raised pedestals on the shoulder instead of the norm for I-85 which is extreme cantilevers lunging out from the shoulder.

i wonder if this was a cost-cutting measure for that particular project or if it's the new norm.

I used to hate the raised pedestals on the shoulder because they're not as readable as being directly over the roadway, but I'm not against them anymore after Georgia cluttered up all its interstates by mounting single signs to full gantries supported on both sides of the highway which is the most ludicrous waste of money and blight on any aesthetic qualities an interstate can have.

I hope the raised pedestals aren't new cheaper standard for NC though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 20, 2021, 07:53:36 PM
On the new concrete 8-lane stretch of I-85 between Charlotte and Greensboro I noticed that a lot of upcoming exit signs are raised pedestals on the shoulder instead of the norm for I-85 which is extreme cantilevers lunging out from the shoulder.

i wonder if this was a cost-cutting measure for that particular project or if it's the new norm.

I used to hate the raised pedestals on the shoulder because they're not as readable as being directly over the roadway, but I'm not against them anymore after Georgia cluttered up all its interstates by mounting single signs to full gantries supported on both sides of the highway which is the most ludicrous waste of money and blight on any aesthetic qualities an interstate can have.

I hope the raised pedestals aren't new cheaper standard for NC though.
I hate those ew.

And, where do you see such signs? Cause I know that this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5300375,-80.5735328,3a,15y,178.14h,94.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sREhTPJMYhCxhJnXxsF4gbw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DREhTPJMYhCxhJnXxsF4gbw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D212.13338%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) isn't one of them.

Although there's one here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5118598,-80.5667391,3a,75y,161.58h,90.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soXmE4ql2_qyXsyQnqsEVtw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)!

And another one here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4883401,-80.572031,3a,46.8y,219.17h,90.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfE4j_RGTw8f0w59G73s27A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 21, 2021, 09:08:21 PM
So, a design build contract was awarded about 7 weeks ago to rebuild a bridge near my home on Sugar Loaf Rd, any guess until I see construction work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 22, 2021, 06:35:44 PM
Guess everyone is incapable of cleaning up after themselves?

https://www.wnct.com/local-news/online-originals-ncdot-picks-up-8-million-pounds-of-litter-on-track-to-break-record/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on July 22, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
Guess everyone is incapable of cleaning up after themselves?

https://www.wnct.com/local-news/online-originals-ncdot-picks-up-8-million-pounds-of-litter-on-track-to-break-record/

There need to be more public advertising campaigns reminding our dumb general population that littering is what losers do. It's so inconsiderate of others to defile the landscape for everyone to enjoy because of your self-centered laziness.

Unfortunately roadside litter is tame compared to a large contingent here in Atlanta who toss their take out containers' right out their car window into parking lots all over town. It's a disheartening regression for civilized humans that's you see multiple times a day.

I always pick up what I can become the more people see it left on the pavement, the more normal and acceptable it becomes to people and I can't let that happen while I still here on this earth.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 23, 2021, 10:21:42 PM
WTF?!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2984995,-78.3884025,3a,76.3y,225.8h,96.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1synoGT4gWcTnheZlbukrZKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on July 24, 2021, 12:12:41 AM
It's time to rein tolbs in.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 24, 2021, 12:43:31 AM
WTF?!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2984995,-78.3884025,3a,76.3y,225.8h,96.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1synoGT4gWcTnheZlbukrZKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Those lights are new and are in flashing mode still to get people used to them before they come online (hence why the STOP signs are still there).  This would have been obvious to you if just looked at the main road and looked at the Jan '19 imagery showing them installing the new lights.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 24, 2021, 01:37:24 AM
WTF?!

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.2984995,-78.3884025,3a,76.3y,225.8h,96.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1synoGT4gWcTnheZlbukrZKQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Those lights are new and are in flashing mode still to get people used to them before they come online (hence why the STOP signs are still there).  This would have been obvious to you if just looked at the main road and looked at the Jan '19 imagery showing them installing the new lights.
I kinda figured that because it confused me at first like wtf are they doing? lol
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 24, 2021, 05:11:01 PM
Btw, Parts of Raleigh especially where the Complete 540 is, has new imagery on Google Earth.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 25, 2021, 10:08:02 AM
North Carolina has 100 counties - but there are a few that never came to be.  One of those counties is Hooper County.  In 1851, the state legislature passed a measure to create Hooper County out of Richmond and Robeson Counties.  However, voters in both counties rejected the plan, and Hooper County never came to be.

Hooper County would have been named after William Hooper - one of the three North Carolinians that signed the Declaration of Independence.

More details here:
https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2021/07/hooper-county-county-that-never-was.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2021, 02:24:29 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 26, 2021, 02:35:41 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

Tried Historicaerials.com?

2006-08-09 versions all look decent over Greenville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2021, 02:43:21 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

Tried Historicaerials.com?

2006-08-09 versions all look decent over Greenville.
Yes and are there any more than that?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 26, 2021, 03:59:11 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

The county's online parcel viewer (https://gis.pittcountync.gov/opis/) has what appears to be 0.5 ft or 1 ft aerial imagery from 2004.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

The county's online parcel viewer (https://gis.pittcountync.gov/opis/) has what appears to be 0.5 ft or 1 ft aerial imagery from 2004.
I'm surprised Orthoimagery missed Pitt county.

Google Earth and Historic Aerials 2005 and 2006 imagery for Pitt county is poor quality. Thanks.

I wish you can bring this onto Google Earth, but I don't know how.

Edit: It probably IS Orthoimagery, apparently this (https://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/nconemap::2004-orthoimagery/about) did not take me directly to it and it doesn't show Pitt County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 26, 2021, 06:55:38 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

The county's online parcel viewer (https://gis.pittcountync.gov/opis/) has what appears to be 0.5 ft or 1 ft aerial imagery from 2004.
I'm surprised Orthoimagery missed Pitt county.

Google Earth and Historic Aerials 2005 and 2006 imagery for Pitt county is poor quality. Thanks.

I wish you can bring this onto Google Earth, but I don't know how.

Edit: It probably IS Orthoimagery, apparently this (https://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/nconemap::2004-orthoimagery/about) did not take me directly to it and it doesn't show Pitt County.

It doesn't look like their REST service supports KML/KMZ queries, but you can bring the service into the ArcGIS online map viewer and turn layers on and off as needed, change base map, transparency, etc.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.pittcountync.gov%2Fgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FOPIS%2FOPIS%2FMapServer&source=sd (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.pittcountync.gov%2Fgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FOPIS%2FOPIS%2FMapServer&source=sd)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2021, 07:19:10 PM
Does Pitt County have any imagery from the mid 2000s that are clear?

The county's online parcel viewer (https://gis.pittcountync.gov/opis/) has what appears to be 0.5 ft or 1 ft aerial imagery from 2004.
I'm surprised Orthoimagery missed Pitt county.

Google Earth and Historic Aerials 2005 and 2006 imagery for Pitt county is poor quality. Thanks.

I wish you can bring this onto Google Earth, but I don't know how.

Edit: It probably IS Orthoimagery, apparently this (https://www.nconemap.gov/datasets/nconemap::2004-orthoimagery/about) did not take me directly to it and it doesn't show Pitt County.

It doesn't look like their REST service supports KML/KMZ queries, but you can bring the service into the ArcGIS online map viewer and turn layers on and off as needed, change base map, transparency, etc.

https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.pittcountync.gov%2Fgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FOPIS%2FOPIS%2FMapServer&source=sd (https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgis.pittcountync.gov%2Fgis%2Frest%2Fservices%2FOPIS%2FOPIS%2FMapServer&source=sd)
Ok
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 26, 2021, 09:33:21 PM
I wonder if it's possible to move US-258 going back though Farmville? What's the purpose of putting it on the freeway anyhow?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on July 27, 2021, 01:34:04 AM
^ You been to downtown Farmville?  Ever seen a truck or large vehicle try to navigate the turn 258 used to take there?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on July 27, 2021, 02:01:53 AM
^ You been to downtown Farmville?  Ever seen a truck or large vehicle try to navigate the turn 258 used to take there?
Yeah, I've seen one made a very wide turn and even hit a curb. Maybe they should fix the exit signs.

Why can't they just make a "truck route"?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dustin DeWinn on July 28, 2021, 05:55:46 PM
I noticed on Capital Blvd near Peace St. in Raleigh that the U-turn has time limits - No U-turn btwn 400pm-600pm

I dont know exactly where this was because I had to make a detour off my route. Has anyone seen this anywhere else?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 29, 2021, 12:25:04 AM
A lot of cities sometimes have restrictions that are only in effect during Rush Hour.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 03, 2021, 11:10:20 PM
The Salem Parkway upgrade in Winston-Salem was one of just 16 out of 173 nominees nationwide to win a Grand Award in the national 2021 American Council of Engineering Companies Engineering Excellence Awards​ competition. More in this NCDOT press release:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-02-salem-parkway-project-wins-national-award.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-02-salem-parkway-project-wins-national-award.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 04, 2021, 03:13:25 PM
The 2021-2022 state map is now available.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 04, 2021, 03:39:36 PM
A lot of cities sometimes have restrictions that are only in effect during Rush Hour.

Well, Raleigh may have improved the timing of the signals on big thoroughfares like Capital, but I swear the the lights need to cycle through the phases faster or get some damn metal sensors in the pavement. Every light near Capital and on it forces people to wait like 3 minutes for every phase, even on the side roads like near Plantation Pointe shopping center.

I couldn't handle the long waits and started just doing anything to avoid waiting so long.

Atlanta slows down lights changing during morning and evening rush with is good to maximize throughput, but the rest of the day they will change quickly for detected cars.

Too much of people's lives is spent at stoplights.

Very conservatively say 5 lights a day at 2 minutes per light. 10 minutes a day x 30,  300 minutes per month 3600 minutes a year.......60 hours a year  sitting at traffic lights.  Did I do that right?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 04, 2021, 04:08:37 PM
The 2021-2022 state map is now available.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx)

Of note is the dotted line for the remaining 540 loop is "Future I-540" in the inset.

US 70 has not been moved High Point to Greensboro (Rand McN already did this one).

I-885 not labeled nor shown as open.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 06, 2021, 06:16:44 PM
The 2021-2022 state map is now available.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx)

Of note is the dotted line for the remaining 540 loop is "Future I-540" in the inset.

US 70 has not been moved High Point to Greensboro (Rand McN already did this one).

I-885 not labeled nor shown as open.
Meanwhile. the Wilson inset has still not been corrected. It still lists US 117 as being concurrent with US 264 from I-95 and shows I-795 exit numbers for US 264 that were never changed. On the Triad inset they also list I-840 on the eastern section of the Loop with I-785.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2021, 08:21:02 PM
Any thoughts about the new (HPC #92) corridor designated along US 421 from Greensboro to I-95 near Dunn?  Seems to have emerged "out of the blue", so to speak.  If it had been intended as an intercity connector, the rational route would simply continue south along NC 87 to Fayetteville rather than turn east to the Dunn area -- unless the location of the I-95 interchange can be "massaged" so it's closer to the I-95/40 junction, so the new corridor could serve as a "relief route" for I-40 while avoiding the Triangle.  Nevertheless, I for one would have thought that any number of NC corridors would have gotten this treatment before the one that actually did -- namely US 74 between I-26, Charlotte, and Rockingham; NC 11 between US 70/I-42 and US 64/I-87, and even US 17 from Williamston south to the SC state line.  In-state politics probably has a large part to play here.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on August 06, 2021, 08:54:17 PM
NCDOT is supposed to start widening US 421 from Sanford to Broadway in 2022.  However, there are no other projects on the horizon for this corridor from Sanford to Dunn.  US 421 is just 2 lanes from Sanford to Lillington.  Also, US 421 goes right thru the center of Dunn and it is quite dangerous as it is just a 4 lane street with NO center turn lane or right turn lane and plenty of driveways!!!!   A lot of money would be needed for this to be an effective HPC.  It would provide better connectivity between Sanford and ENC and Wilmington, but money is better used on finishing I-74 between Asheville and Wilmington.  Also before US 421,  I would widen NC 11 to 4 lanes and finish the gap between Kenansville and Pink Hill, then one could travel between Greenville and Wilmington and never have to use any 2 lane roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 07, 2021, 10:08:28 AM
Any thoughts about the new (HPC #92) corridor designated along US 421 from Greensboro to I-95 near Dunn?  Seems to have emerged "out of the blue", so to speak.  If it had been intended as an intercity connector, the rational route would simply continue south along NC 87 to Fayetteville rather than turn east to the Dunn area -- unless the location of the I-95 interchange can be "massaged" so it's closer to the I-95/40 junction, so the new corridor could serve as a "relief route" for I-40 while avoiding the Triangle.  Nevertheless, I for one would have thought that any number of NC corridors would have gotten this treatment before the one that actually did -- namely US 74 between I-26, Charlotte, and Rockingham; NC 11 between US 70/I-42 and US 64/I-87, and even US 17 from Williamston south to the SC state line.  In-state politics probably has a large part to play here.   

NCDOT is supposed to start widening US 421 from Sanford to Broadway in 2022.  However, there are no other projects on the horizon for this corridor from Sanford to Dunn.  US 421 is just 2 lanes from Sanford to Lillington.  Also, US 421 goes right thru the center of Dunn and it is quite dangerous as it is just a 4 lane street with NO center turn lane or right turn lane and plenty of driveways!!!!   A lot of money would be needed for this to be an effective HPC.  It would provide better connectivity between Sanford and ENC and Wilmington, but money is better used on finishing I-74 between Asheville and Wilmington.  Also before US 421,  I would widen NC 11 to 4 lanes and finish the gap between Kenansville and Pink Hill, then one could travel between Greenville and Wilmington and never have to use any 2 lane roads.

Not finding NHS High Priority Corridor 92 on the radar yet.  But I'm certain that there will be a few corridors added to the NHS as part of the 2021 Infrastructure Bill, since earmarks are back on the table.  Oddly, the eastern part of this HPC-92 is contrary to NCDOT Strategic Transportation Corridor K that is just like the one sparker described (US-421 Greensboro -to- Sanford, NC-87 Sanford -to- I-95 Fayetteville) except that it continues to Southport along NC-87 staying south and west of the Cape Fear River.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 07, 2021, 10:31:06 AM
I also believe going to Fayetteville makes more sense, unless the idea is to continue it along US 421 to Wilmington someday.

Number this and replace I-785 with I-83? :-|
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 01:54:59 PM
I also believe going to Fayetteville makes more sense, unless the idea is to continue it along US 421 to Wilmington someday.
That would make even less sense, given I-40. I’d rather see them spend limited funding on corridors that actually don’t already have a parallel interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 07, 2021, 04:17:08 PM
I also believe going to Fayetteville makes more sense, unless the idea is to continue it along US 421 to Wilmington someday.

That would make even less sense, given I-40. I’d rather see them spend limited funding on corridors that actually don’t already have a parallel interstate.

Perhaps, except that the US-421//NC-87 corridor from I-85 Greensboro Bypass to NC-295 Fayetteville Outer Loop is almost complete, and already includes at least 17 interchanges (not including the two Interstate connections).  All that remains is a two-lane section between Sanford and Pineview, a short two-lane section just north of Manchester, plus the congested area of Bragg Boulevard through Spring Lake (much of which has already been upgraded).

As I've mentioned several times, the old-timers' route from the Great Lakes to Myrtle Beach through North Carolina was US-52 -to- US-64 -to- US-220 -to- US-74, which just happens to be the routing of I-74.  But it will never make any sense now that US-421//NC-87 is now a much shorter and faster route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 07, 2021, 05:46:02 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.     
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 07, 2021, 05:55:58 PM
Perhaps, except that the US-421//NC-87 corridor from I-85 Greensboro Bypass to NC-295 Fayetteville Outer Loop is almost complete, and already includes at least 17 interchanges (not including the two Interstate connections).  All that remains is a two-lane section between Sanford and Pineview, a short two-lane section just north of Manchester, plus the congested area of Bragg Boulevard through Spring Lake (much of which has already been upgraded).
I fully agree with the need for an interstate highway between Greensboro and Fayetteville along the US-421 / NC-87 corridor. What I’m saying is unnecessary is anything along US-421 east of Sanford, and especially along US-421 east / south of I-95, because it’s effectively paralleling I-40 (which functions as a fully adequate, not congested, rural interstate highway) all the way to Wilmington.

And for the record, no two lane portions exist between Fayetteville and Greensboro. The entire route is 4 lanes minimum throughout. The sections you mentioned are not four lanes divided, rather 5 lane with a center turn lane.

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!).
There is certainly traffic congestion in the Raleigh area that is unpleasant for through traffic, however with the planned expansion of the remaining 4 lane segment of I-40 between US-501 and I-85, and more importantly the ongoing construction of the remaining piece of the NC-540 toll road that will function as an outer 70 mph bypass of the entire city, through traffic will have a viable option to avoid Raleigh and still have a reliable I-40 elsewhere. A relief corridor like US-421 between Greensboro and Dunn specifically to avoid I-40 through Raleigh / Durham is certainly questionable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 07, 2021, 06:16:10 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Traffic on August 08, 2021, 12:04:28 AM
The 2021-2022 state map is now available.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-04-state-map-release.aspx)

Of note is the dotted line for the remaining 540 loop is "Future I-540" in the inset.

US 70 has not been moved High Point to Greensboro (Rand McN already did this one).

I-885 not labeled nor shown as open.
Meanwhile. the Wilson inset has still not been corrected. It still lists US 117 as being concurrent with US 264 from I-95 and shows I-795 exit numbers for US 264 that were never changed. On the Triad inset they also list I-840 on the eastern section of the Loop with I-785.

US 70 is being rerouted along Wendover. Ave. in Greensboro to NC 68/Eastchester Drive just north of High Point.  From there, NC 68 and US 70 will will concurrently back south to the current Bus. 85 just north of Thomasville.  Bus. 85 is being is going away, and that entire section of Bus. 85, that was the original (temp) I-85 back in the day, will now just be US 29 between I-85 Exit 118 and National Hwy. in Thomasville.  From there, the US 29-70 concurrency will resume down to Lexington and Salisbury.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2021, 03:11:27 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crown Victoria on August 08, 2021, 06:22:47 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2021, 07:17:25 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.



Yeah -- getting I-42 onto this one would be too convoluted even for NC; they'd first have to get US 1 designated from Raleigh or Apex to Sanford, then pop a 2nd designation on the Sanford-Dunn segment.  Nah...they'll just stick one number on the whole thing and be done with it.  Anything down US 1 would likely be done as a separate designation/project.  Maybe a I-87 extension; who knows.  Also, I don't think NCDOT wants to play around with putting an Interstate designation on a toll road; they would have just continued the I-540 shielding by now if that were the case.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 08, 2021, 02:19:46 PM
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.

I don't see where an Interstate-quality freeway would ever be needed.  But the concept to start planning for the commercial development of the outer reaches surrounding Raleigh/Durham is going to be appealing to the wheeler-dealers.  My big question is how this ties into the economic grid.  In the past, I-95 development fed the Northeast Corridor and South Florida/West Florida, while I-85 fed Atlanta.  For obvious reasons, the east coast of Florida ended up with parallel spines, whereas Atlanta ended up with a wheel-and-spoke arrangement.  With the Research Triangle Park being located conveniently/inconveniently between the I-85 and I-95 corridors, it seems to me that the key to economic development would be routes that feed that system.  In electrical terms, one would say connecting with the least resistance.  Perpendicular development doesn't make much sense. 

That being said, the US-421 corridor (or alternatively, NCDOT Strategic Transportation Corridor K using NC-87) does connect well with I-40 westward and I-74/I-77 northward.  But with both crossing the mountains, that doesn't feel much like a major economic driver.  Now if the primary goal is to open that development up to the ULCV/neo-Panamax shipping out of the Port of Wilmington, that makes much more sense (particularly if the corridor is connected directly to I-40 east of I-95).  But that type of truck traffic doesn't need anything near Interstate-quality roads for short hauls less than 250 miles.  However, it might justify a new railroad corridor continuing up beyond the A-Line into this area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crown Victoria on August 08, 2021, 04:33:16 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.



Yeah -- getting I-42 onto this one would be too convoluted even for NC; they'd first have to get US 1 designated from Raleigh or Apex to Sanford, then pop a 2nd designation on the Sanford-Dunn segment.  Nah...they'll just stick one number on the whole thing and be done with it.  Anything down US 1 would likely be done as a separate designation/project.  Maybe a I-87 extension; who knows.  Also, I don't think NCDOT wants to play around with putting an Interstate designation on a toll road; they would have just continued the I-540 shielding by now if that were the case.

Very true. There will be a new 2di for the Greensboro-Dunn route, and eventually another for US 74 from Columbus NC, through Charlotte, to Rockingham (there I am going Fictional again). 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 08, 2021, 04:42:52 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 08, 2021, 04:46:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.



Yeah -- getting I-42 onto this one would be too convoluted even for NC; they'd first have to get US 1 designated from Raleigh or Apex to Sanford, then pop a 2nd designation on the Sanford-Dunn segment.  Nah...they'll just stick one number on the whole thing and be done with it.  Anything down US 1 would likely be done as a separate designation/project.  Maybe a I-87 extension; who knows.  Also, I don't think NCDOT wants to play around with putting an Interstate designation on a toll road; they would have just continued the I-540 shielding by now if that were the case.

Very true. There will be a new 2di for the Greensboro-Dunn route, and eventually another for US 74 from Columbus NC, through Charlotte, to Rockingham (there I am going Fictional again).

There is NO proposal for new 2di in North Carolina after I-42 and I-87, so that's definitely going fictional.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 08, 2021, 06:20:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 08, 2021, 08:13:45 PM
^ 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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crown Victoria on August 08, 2021, 10:43:27 PM
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...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 09, 2021, 03:40:35 AM
There is NO proposal for new 2di in North Carolina after I-42 and I-87, so that's definitely going fictional.

The Greensboro-Dunn future Interstate -- at least once the bill presently up for approval is passed -- is, or will be, a reality.  Whether it'll be a 2di or 3di remains to be seen -- but its location and trajectory isn't terribly conducive to a x85 or x95 (accounting for both ends of the corridor), and it doesn't actually intersect I-40 (although that hasn't stopped such designations before).  I'll still put a few preliminary cents down on an even number in the 30's, either the unused-in-NC "36" or "38", which is an extension of SC 38 that barely pokes into NC, and (at some point TBD) will be subsumed by I-73.  It's likely that the folks behind the designation of this corridor will point to I-42 and posit that their corridor is just as important and should be offered the same consideration; unless there's some objection lodged (unlikely), a 2di designation should pass muster. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 09, 2021, 04:33:55 PM
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.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 09, 2021, 04:42:04 PM
There is NO proposal for new 2di in North Carolina after I-42 and I-87, so that's definitely going fictional.

The Greensboro-Dunn future Interstate -- at least once the bill presently up for approval is passed -- is, or will be, a reality.  Whether it'll be a 2di or 3di remains to be seen -- but its location and trajectory isn't terribly conducive to a x85 or x95 (accounting for both ends of the corridor), and it doesn't actually intersect I-40 (although that hasn't stopped such designations before).  I'll still put a few preliminary cents down on an even number in the 30's, either the unused-in-NC "36" or "38", which is an extension of SC 38 that barely pokes into NC, and (at some point TBD) will be subsumed by I-73.  It's likely that the folks behind the designation of this corridor will point to I-42 and posit that their corridor is just as important and should be offered the same consideration; unless there's some objection lodged (unlikely), a 2di designation should pass muster.

First of all, the Greensboro-Fayetteville (Dunn) future interstate is NOT going to be a 2di. It will be 3di at best. According to NC Core website, their proposed interstate number is I-685.

Besides, it cannot happen unless each MPO along the corridor approves it and submit to NCDOT before NCDOT can ever consider upgrading US 421 corridor and putting an interstate number on it. The only one that approved it so far is Greensboro's MPO. So, as of right now... it is still a proposal and a question mark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 09, 2021, 10:39:58 PM
There is NO proposal for new 2di in North Carolina after I-42 and I-87, so that's definitely going fictional.
The Greensboro-Dunn future Interstate -- at least once the bill presently up for approval is passed -- is, or will be, a reality.  Whether it'll be a 2di or 3di remains to be seen -- but its location and trajectory isn't terribly conducive to a x85 or x95 (accounting for both ends of the corridor), and it doesn't actually intersect I-40 (although that hasn't stopped such designations before).  I'll still put a few preliminary cents down on an even number in the 30's, either the unused-in-NC "36" or "38", which is an extension of SC 38 that barely pokes into NC, and (at some point TBD) will be subsumed by I-73.  It's likely that the folks behind the designation of this corridor will point to I-42 and posit that their corridor is just as important and should be offered the same consideration; unless there's some objection lodged (unlikely), a 2di designation should pass muster.

First of all, the Greensboro-Fayetteville (Dunn) future interstate is NOT going to be a 2di. It will be 3di at best. According to NC Core website, their proposed interstate number is I-685.

Besides, it cannot happen unless each MPO along the corridor approves it and submit to NCDOT before NCDOT can ever consider upgrading US 421 corridor and putting an interstate number on it. The only one that approved it so far is Greensboro's MPO. So, as of right now... it is still a proposal and a question mark.
Here's a link to an article from last summer sponsored by the Carolina Core group Strider mentioned that is pushing Interstate status for US 421 and promoting the I-685 number:
https://businessnc.com/the-carolina-core-comes-together-to-win-big/ (https://businessnc.com/the-carolina-core-comes-together-to-win-big/)

and here's the CarolinaCore webpage with a map of the corridor where I-685 is mentioned :
https://nccarolinacore.com/why-the-core/location-infrastructure/ (https://nccarolinacore.com/why-the-core/location-infrastructure/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Crown Victoria on August 09, 2021, 11:36:36 PM
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.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 10, 2021, 12:24:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 10, 2021, 01:26:19 AM
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! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2021, 06:42:00 AM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27710.0) database (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) sometime later this month.

CORRECTION: The USRNC member emailed me a PDF with the final decisions. Hopefully this link (https://www.dropbox.com/s/125edrwda3y1bmw/Final%20_Report_USRN%20Application%20Results%20Spring%202021.pdf?dl=0) works.

Thought I'd put this here since it contains changes related to NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 10, 2021, 12:12:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 10, 2021, 05:16:58 PM
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
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 10, 2021, 06:35:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 10, 2021, 09:24:41 PM
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.  :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 10, 2021, 09:55:30 PM
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.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51370855053_b6f1306d0a_b.jpg) (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2998325,-81.7165176,3a,21.8y,79.17h,85.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swB5fVPm01pt_BYbFB4QawQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 11, 2021, 01:23:51 PM
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 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2021/2021_08_04.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 11, 2021, 06:28:50 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 11, 2021, 07:06:30 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 12, 2021, 02:37:09 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 12, 2021, 03:19:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 12, 2021, 09:35:23 AM
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 12, 2021, 04:58:00 PM
Quote from: 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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on August 12, 2021, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

Plus, wasn't US 117 returned to its former alignment between Goldsboro and Wilson?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on August 12, 2021, 05:13:37 PM
Quote from: 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.
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?)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 12, 2021, 06:05:43 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 12, 2021, 07:24:56 PM
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].
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 12, 2021, 07:56:03 PM
I-26 eastbound near Hendersonville (just past exit 54) will be shut down for a few days due to a depression in the roadway (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-12-i-26-east-closed-depression.aspx). 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? (https://wlos.com/news/local/when-is-sinkhole-on-exit-54-ramp-from-i-26-west-going-to-be-fixed)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 12, 2021, 08:10:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 13, 2021, 01:53:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 13, 2021, 05:57:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2021, 10:23:58 AM
Quote from: 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.

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 (http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/HO1_Policy_Establ_Develop_USRN.pdf).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 14, 2021, 10:54:51 AM
^ Then his initial point still stands. He would not be surprised if US-220 is moved back to its original alignment, given precedent of other routes in North Carolina, such as US-117, and other sections of US-220.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on August 14, 2021, 11:04:36 AM
And MY point, which seems to have been lost amongst the emotion, is that the AASHTO SCRN would be violating its own policies in approving such a move.

Is there precedent?  Sure.  But it doesn't mean they're not ignoring their own policy...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 14, 2021, 02:45:56 PM
And MY point, which seems to have been lost amongst the emotion, is that the AASHTO SCRN would be violating its own policies in approving such a move.

Is there precedent?  Sure.  But it doesn't mean they're not ignoring their own policy...

Like sprjus4 said, my initial point stands unless AASHTO has something to say about it. If they don't.. oh well. That's on them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 16, 2021, 05:46:49 PM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.

P6.0 & STIP Program Update, August 4, 2021 (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/P6.0_and_STIP_Program_Update.pdf)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382169962_70a6c4555c_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51383944430_e4876cfb47_h.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on August 16, 2021, 08:20:09 PM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.

P6.0 & STIP Program Update, August 4, 2021 (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/P6.0_and_STIP_Program_Update.pdf)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382169962_70a6c4555c_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51383944430_e4876cfb47_h.jpg)
Uncle Sam should be granting them more money if the bill passes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 17, 2021, 02:06:57 AM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.

P6.0 & STIP Program Update, August 4, 2021 (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Documents/P6.0_and_STIP_Program_Update.pdf)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51382169962_70a6c4555c_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51383944430_e4876cfb47_h.jpg)

NC have only themselves to blame for having so many "committed projects" going all at once in the first place.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 17, 2021, 06:19:04 PM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.
North Carolina started calling itself the "Good Roads State" more than 100 years ago. Of course it hasn't always deserved that name, but the fact is that building roads is politically very popular in the state. There's a reason why NC has a higher gas tax than nearly all other Southern states. Every county and every town has ideas about roads to build or improve and NCDOT has the task of trying to keep up with all these demands.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on August 17, 2021, 07:16:38 PM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.
North Carolina started calling itself the "Good Roads State" more than 100 years ago. Of course it hasn't always deserved that name, but the fact is that building roads is politically very popular in the state. There's a reason why NC has a higher gas tax than nearly all other Southern states. Every county and every town has ideas about roads to build or improve and NCDOT has the task of trying to keep up with all these demands.

I may be biased but I believe NC has the best primary road network in all the Southeast. That includes interstates, US and NC highways, and most SR roads. Pavement quality, signage, and road design are very good overall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 18, 2021, 10:36:31 AM
Y'all are worried about highway numbers and fictional roads when NCDOT is a few billion dollars short of funding their "committed" projects. Get ready for more project delays in the next STIP until Uncle Sam can print some more money.
North Carolina started calling itself the "Good Roads State" more than 100 years ago. Of course it hasn't always deserved that name, but the fact is that building roads is politically very popular in the state. There's a reason why NC has a higher gas tax than nearly all other Southern states. Every county and every town has ideas about roads to build or improve and NCDOT has the task of trying to keep up with all these demands.

No, back at the dawn of the automobile era, North Carolina tried to keep up with the prosperous Northeastern states by distinguishing itself as having the first and most paved roads in the country.

At one point is was recognized nationally as having the most miles of paved roads. It earned the moniker "The Good Roads State" from the rest of the country. Thankfully, the powers that be went all out adopting the highest standards for all pieces of the total infrastructure. The grading, bridge design, culverts and signage have always been high quality. Overhead signs have rounded corners (more expensive), shoulder signs have concrete footings (I-40/I-85 duplex's blue amenities signs are still perfect after 25 years of weather and elements).

Believe it or not, but the yellow (bridge ices before road) signs used to have a horizonal hinge through the middle and NCDOT would fold every one of them down statewide in the summer when it wasn't applicable. They were metal colored half-sign triangles during the summer.

Georgia doesn't have any overheads on non-interstate roads nor at junctions with interstates, only on the interstates themselves. That alone amounts to tens of millions that NC spends more on.

NC's gas tax was high, now it's average, because it maintains all the roads in the state where as in most other states each county must maintain its own roads which would be from another form of tax that residents pay. I like NCDOT doing it all because there's a uniform look to the roads across the state and no chance of counties trying to evoke a different aesthetic.

But back then and still today, NC believes that highways are the best way to lift all 100 counties out of poverty and on to prosperity. That is why there is so much emphasis on highway infrastructure and though it can get big and expensive to maintain, it still seems to be good for maintaining a competitive edge for a bright future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 18, 2021, 10:39:36 AM
photo of the day on the other end of I-40:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51385582427_eb0d38f12b_k.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6696K7)barstow (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6696K7) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 18, 2021, 05:35:35 PM
photo of the day on the other end of I-40:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51385582427_eb0d38f12b_k.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6696K7)barstow (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6696K7) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr

That must be a newer edition of that particular sign concept; the one I remember from the early 2010's was still button-copy on porcelain, considerably higher, and had the I-40 shield centered at the top -- and the KM distance under the mileage.  Also, the sound wall wasn't there then -- knowing D8, the signage change occurred when that was built, but they opted for a smaller and simpler aspect. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:49:06 PM
^ At least they kept it! North Carolina can't say the same with their "Barstow" version.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 18, 2021, 10:58:29 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2021, 06:00:30 AM
^ At least they kept it! North Carolina can't say the same with their "Barstow" version.

NC would still have it's sign if people had stopped stealing it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2021, 06:34:33 AM
^ At least they kept it! North Carolina can't say the same with their "Barstow" version.

NC would still have it's sign if people had stopped stealing it.

The CA version of the sign's probably safe; no one's going to bother to drive out to Barstow just to make off with it (unless they could sell it)! 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 19, 2021, 07:18:05 AM
^ At least they kept it! North Carolina can't say the same with their "Barstow" version.

NC would still have it's sign if people had stopped stealing it.

The CA version of the sign's probably safe; no one's going to bother to drive out to Barstow just to make off with it (unless they could sell it)!

"Honey, wake up the kids. We're going to Barstow!" :spin:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 19, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
^ At least they kept it! North Carolina can't say the same with their "Barstow" version.

NC would still have it's sign if people had stopped stealing it.

The CA version of the sign's probably safe; no one's going to bother to drive out to Barstow just to make off with it (unless they could sell it)!

"Honey, wake up the kids. We're going through Barstow!" :spin:

FTFY  :sombrero:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 19, 2021, 06:45:29 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html
Thanks for a great piece on possible passenger rail expansion in NC. One amendment: you're correct that there are three round trips daily between Raleigh and Charlotte on the Piedmont, but there is also a fourth round trip on the Carolinian, the through train to and from New York. Before the pandemic hit there was a plan to add a fifth round trip.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 19, 2021, 08:01:26 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html
Thanks for a great piece on possible passenger rail expansion in NC. One amendment: you're correct that there are three round trips daily between Raleigh and Charlotte on the Piedmont, but there is also a fourth round trip on the Carolinian, the through train to and from New York. Before the pandemic hit there was a plan to add a fifth round trip.

Thanks and you are right - I kept going I know there are four, but kept forgetting that the NC leg of the Carolinian counts as well.  I'll make that correction here shortly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on August 21, 2021, 11:59:50 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html

Amtrak doesn't need to expand long haul routes or ones with low ridership.

If any money is sent to Amtrak, they need to get the busy routes in sturdy condition with speed and safety objectives.

I'm talking the Northeast corridor first, get the new tunnel under the Hudson started, and the same for any other routes in the country that are busy enough to justify the first round of available money.

The sweet spot for trains is around 500 miles, otherwise flying is faster, cheaper, etc. The Northeast and Mid atlantic and Southeast have so much air traffic that there's a limit to future growth even with GPS guidance replacing radar.

Driving 500 miles sucks, so that's when the train is the perfect mode of travel. It's smooth, quiet and lulls you to sleep even now in the Northeast corridor. It's the most luxurious way to travel.

NC already got what most states didn't....$600 million from Obama's high speed rail initiative and NC spent all of it bolstering the Raleigh to Charlotte tracks, Union station in Raleigh, and some freight terminals in Charlotte soon.

So I don't agree that expansion inside NC right now is urgent enough for this rare funding.

But I do think that resurrecting the S line beelining from Raleigh to Richmond is worthy of some funding. now that VA owns all of it and NC owns it's portion, there's but 100 miles that separates NC"s successful railroad from the Northeast Corridor.

Virginia is going all in with rail, and I predict the two states will cough up the $4 billion to reinstate the S line which will bring D.C. to possibly 3-3.5 hours from Raleigh making day trips very doable, and the nation's capital will always be enlightening for the public to want to do those day trips.

After that, I think faster rail from Charlotte to Atlanta is justified as the population of North Georgia is already over 7 million, and upstate SC is the most populated region of SC and it's just a hugely significant industrial corridor.

NC once again had their shovel ready ducks in a row and that's why they got $600 million. I think they'll be given more because the planning has already been fleshed out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Finrod on August 22, 2021, 02:38:42 AM
"Honey, wake up the kids. We're going to Barstow!" :spin:
"We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2021, 12:35:41 AM
"Honey, wake up the kids. We're going to Barstow!" :spin:
"We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold."

Hunter Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, IIRC. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 25, 2021, 12:28:47 PM
Upcoming closures at the I-440/Wade Avenue interchange due to I-440 improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-25-i-440-wade-ave-ramp-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-08-25-i-440-wade-ave-ramp-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on August 29, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html

This would be excellent for the state. Im a huge proponent for passenger rail. I wish the government hadn't dropped the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service. I bet the Amtrak train to asheville would be a big success. Its a popular destination for Charlotte folks, and the train ride itself would be great; going up the Old Fort loops. NS only runs 1 local train over the loops nowadays, so adding Amtrak through there wouldn't be difficult from a traffic standpoint. I also want to see Charlotte to Wilmington service. The ex-SAL line is arrow straight for almost 80 miles across the southern border of NC. Most of the old depots are still standing the their original spots, and some have been kept up or restored. CSX would never share that route though. X-(

I would also love to see faster speeds on the current Charlotte to Raleigh line. I think 80 is the current limit, but I bet that line could handle 110 pretty easily.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 29, 2021, 09:17:52 PM
The expansion of the overall Amtrak network is a definite possibility when/if the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passes.  In North Carolina, it would lead to a significant expansion of intrastate service to Wilmington and Asheville.  I take a look at the proposals, some of the hurdles, and what you can expect along these proposed new passenger rail lines.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/exploring-north-carolinas-possible.html

This would be excellent for the state. Im a huge proponent for passenger rail. I wish the government hadn't dropped the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service. I bet the Amtrak train to asheville would be a big success. Its a popular destination for Charlotte folks, and the train ride itself would be great; going up the Old Fort loops. NS only runs 1 local train over the loops nowadays, so adding Amtrak through there wouldn't be difficult from a traffic standpoint. I also want to see Charlotte to Wilmington service. The ex-SAL line is arrow straight for almost 80 miles across the southern border of NC. Most of the old depots are still standing the their original spots, and some have been kept up or restored. CSX would never share that route though. X-(

I would also love to see faster speeds on the current Charlotte to Raleigh line. I think 80 is the current limit, but I bet that line could handle 110 pretty easily.

Re the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service; you're a hair over 50 years too late for that -- that very condition was the catalyst for Amtrak to begin with.  The freight RR's (this was mostly pre-merger) were bleeding money from the late '50's through most of the '60's, and by about 1967 had already cut back their passenger service to the absolute minimum, since this was a substantial component of their red ink.  Amtrak was conceived as a way to preserve several major national passenger-rail corridors; the regional services such as NC's in-state trains were added later, although most coordinated in large part with the national Amtrak for equipment and scheduling -- although funding for these regional lines was state-by-state.  With the various freight RR mergers over the past 50 years, the RR companies are in considerably better fiscal shape than then, but they have zero interest in assuming individual responsibility for passenger service -- and there is no political will from either party to re-impose passenger requirements on them despite nearly constant criticism of Amtrak from both sides of the aisle.  So what is out there is what will likely remain the passenger rail template for the foreseeable future -- although that template is almost always being "tweaked", ostensibly to provide better service (although cutbacks in the '80's and '90's were strictly cost-saving moves).  With attention being paid to transportation these days, Amtrak expansion may be possible in the near-term; but, conversely, if specific services start bleeding funds, from a historical perspective they could wind up on the chopping block years down the line.  If the effects of the present legislative effort are manifested relatively quickly, we'll see where Amtrak is headed soon enough!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on August 30, 2021, 11:18:36 AM

Re the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service; you're a hair over 50 years too late for that -- that very condition was the catalyst for Amtrak to begin with.  The freight RR's (this was mostly pre-merger) were bleeding money from the late '50's through most of the '60's, and by about 1967 had already cut back their passenger service to the absolute minimum, since this was a substantial component of their red ink.

The decline in passenger service (funded fully by the railroads) was hastened by federal investment in highway improvements, specifically the interstate highway system, and the air traffic control system that allowed for the expansion of air travel (aided by state and local government investment of tax dollars in airports). Railroads got nothing in any of the deals; it took until the '80s for tight regulation of their rates and operations to be dropped. Perhaps if there was investment in rail and an earlier relaxation of rules, we would still have a more-viable passenger rail system.

Bruce in Blacksburg
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sparker on August 30, 2021, 02:25:54 PM

Re the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service; you're a hair over 50 years too late for that -- that very condition was the catalyst for Amtrak to begin with.  The freight RR's (this was mostly pre-merger) were bleeding money from the late '50's through most of the '60's, and by about 1967 had already cut back their passenger service to the absolute minimum, since this was a substantial component of their red ink.

The decline in passenger service (funded fully by the railroads) was hastened by federal investment in highway improvements, specifically the interstate highway system, and the air traffic control system that allowed for the expansion of air travel (aided by state and local government investment of tax dollars in airports). Railroads got nothing in any of the deals; it took until the '80s for tight regulation of their rates and operations to be dropped. Perhaps if there was investment in rail and an earlier relaxation of rules, we would still have a more-viable passenger rail system.

Bruce in Blacksburg


A large-scale public investment in rail wouldn't have even been considered up until the inception of Amtrak; since (a) they were privately owned, even the passenger-heavy Northeast Corridor (at the time part of the Pennsylvania Railroad/"PRR"), and (b) highly regulated re freight rates to provide a barrier to regional monopoly, which was viewed as the maximum extent of federal involvement.  It wasn't until passenger service, long identified as a public good, was in jeopardy, in part due to the factors cited in the post above, that there was anything like active federal involvement in the rail network.  Of course, in 1980 the Staggers Act (named after its author, Representative Harley O. Staggers [D-WV]) largely deregulated the rail lines, resulting in a series of major mergers over the ensuing few years.  The rail system as it exists today is a product of that action.   
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on August 30, 2021, 02:52:10 PM

Re the requirement for freight companies to offer passenger service; you're a hair over 50 years too late for that -- that very condition was the catalyst for Amtrak to begin with.  The freight RR's (this was mostly pre-merger) were bleeding money from the late '50's through most of the '60's, and by about 1967 had already cut back their passenger service to the absolute minimum, since this was a substantial component of their red ink.

The decline in passenger service (funded fully by the railroads) was hastened by federal investment in highway improvements, specifically the interstate highway system, and the air traffic control system that allowed for the expansion of air travel (aided by state and local government investment of tax dollars in airports). Railroads got nothing in any of the deals; it took until the '80s for tight regulation of their rates and operations to be dropped. Perhaps if there was investment in rail and an earlier relaxation of rules, we would still have a more-viable passenger rail system.

Bruce in Blacksburg

 :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 31, 2021, 07:55:58 AM
The NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract to widen I-40 between I-85 and US 15/501 in Orange County. The project also includes a temporary change to the westbound exit for 15/501 (Exit 270) to eliminate the left lane drop and have the right lane exit.

Award Letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/08-17-2021%20Central%20Letting/C204632%20DurhamOrange%20Awd%20Lter.pdf)

I would dance if I knew how.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 01, 2021, 01:23:46 PM
The NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract to widen I-40 between I-85 and US 15/501 in Orange County. The project also includes a temporary change to the westbound exit for 15/501 (Exit 270) to eliminate the left lane drop and have the right lane exit.

Award Letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Central%20Letting/08-17-2021%20Central%20Letting/C204632%20DurhamOrange%20Awd%20Lter.pdf)

I would dance if I knew how.

NCDOT press release:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2021, 01:49:19 PM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

And looking at a bigger picture - the I-40/I-85 corridor combined will be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greenville, SC (pending completion of widening between Spartanburg, SC and NC) - almost 300 miles in length.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 01, 2021, 03:00:20 PM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

And looking at a bigger picture - the I-40/I-85 corridor combined will be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greenville, SC (pending completion of widening between Spartanburg, SC and NC) - almost 300 miles in length.

Still have the unfunded 10 mile section between SC and Kings Mountain, but close enough.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 01, 2021, 04:52:26 PM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

And looking at a bigger picture - the I-40/I-85 corridor combined will be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greenville, SC (pending completion of widening between Spartanburg, SC and NC) - almost 300 miles in length.

Still have the unfunded 10 mile section between SC and Kings Mountain, but close enough.
Actually, you are correct on that. However, at least a consistent corridor will exist between Raleigh and Charlotte. Obviously, the long term goal is a 6+ lane interstate highway between Raleigh and Atlanta, GA, once South Carolina begins the remaining portion south towards Georgia, and then Georgia's ongoing projects towards South Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 01, 2021, 06:13:38 PM
There had been multiple interchange improvements planned for I40 in the Morganton area that were delayed, but it seems we are past the delayed date.  How can I find the current planned dates?

Thanks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 01, 2021, 09:29:43 PM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

Not entirely.  The design plans I saw last year had westbound 40 dropping to 2 lanes before it merges with 85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 02, 2021, 01:16:54 AM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

Not entirely.  The design plans I saw last year had westbound 40 dropping to 2 lanes before it merges with 85.
It’s an interchange area, so naturally lanes may drop briefly. However, outside of there, it would be 3 lanes in each direction at minimum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 02, 2021, 08:15:09 AM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

Not entirely.  The design plans I saw last year had westbound 40 dropping to 2 lanes before it merges with 85.
It’s an interchange area, so naturally lanes may drop briefly. However, outside of there, it would be 3 lanes in each direction at minimum.

This will prove to be a trouble spot. It's already a frustrating area as everyone gets in the left lane three miles before the merge onto I-85, even though there is ample space to merge from the second lane at I-85. Tractor-trailers are the worst since they can't take the curve quite as fast as the four-wheelers would like. No one uses the exit from I-40 WB to I-85 NB (a whopping 100 vehicles in 2019 AADT), so all traffic will be squeezing from three lanes to two. The same logic will apply here where everyone moves over three miles before the lane exits. Not sure how the traffic forecast supported this, but I guess they really didn't want to widen that bridge.

They are starting the third lane for I-40 eastbound a short distance before the split. That should help some there. Now, if people can just figure out that it takes more gas to go up that hill instead of putt-putting along until they've dropped to 50 mph.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Design%20Build%20Program/I-3306A/02-23-2021%20I-3306A%20I-85_I-40%20Split%20Exit%20163%20Lane%20Configuration.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 02, 2021, 08:19:19 AM
There had been multiple interchange improvements planned for I40 in the Morganton area that were delayed, but it seems we are past the delayed date.  How can I find the current planned dates?

Thanks.

They are still in the STIP, but they have been delayed until 2029 or later. I was disappointed and surprised about the US 64 interchange being delayed that long.

This should take you to a map of current STIP projects. https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c)

NCDOT was supposed to release draft scores for the next STIP at the end of August....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 02, 2021, 11:02:29 AM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

Not entirely.  The design plans I saw last year had westbound 40 dropping to 2 lanes before it merges with 85.

It’s an interchange area, so naturally lanes may drop briefly. However, outside of there, it would be 3 lanes in each direction at minimum.

This will prove to be a trouble spot. It's already a frustrating area as everyone gets in the left lane three miles before the merge onto I-85, even though there is ample space to merge from the second lane at I-85. Tractor-trailers are the worst since they can't take the curve quite as fast as the four-wheelers would like. No one uses the exit from I-40 WB to I-85 NB (a whopping 100 vehicles in 2019 AADT), so all traffic will be squeezing from three lanes to two. The same logic will apply here where everyone moves over three miles before the lane exits. Not sure how the traffic forecast supported this, but I guess they really didn't want to widen that bridge.

They are starting the third lane for I-40 eastbound a short distance before the split. That should help some there. Now, if people can just figure out that it takes more gas to go up that hill instead of putt-putting along until they've dropped to 50 mph.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Design%20Build%20Program/I-3306A/02-23-2021%20I-3306A%20I-85_I-40%20Split%20Exit%20163%20Lane%20Configuration.pdf

One of the issues here is the crazy interweaving of folks headed to Exit 160 (Efland).  Understandably, Efland traffic on I-85 tends to work its way across the I-40 traffic into the right lanes.  But it is typical for Efland traffic on I-40 to work their way left into the middle lane from I-85 in order to pass truck traffic on the upgrade in the approach to Exit 161.  All this is worsened by folks from I-40 who (mistakenly) think they can make use of the lane drop to pass traffic on the right.  Even with all of this craziness, the merge works pretty well even when both I-40 and I-85 are saturated westbound.  This will certainly get worse once I-40 widened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on September 03, 2021, 10:16:33 AM
There had been multiple interchange improvements planned for I40 in the Morganton area that were delayed, but it seems we are past the delayed date.  How can I find the current planned dates?

Thanks.

They are still in the STIP, but they have been delayed until 2029 or later. I was disappointed and surprised about the US 64 interchange being delayed that long.

This should take you to a map of current STIP projects. https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c)

NCDOT was supposed to release draft scores for the next STIP at the end of August....

Yeah, I was hoping the list and scores would be released by now…
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 04, 2021, 09:19:25 AM
There had been multiple interchange improvements planned for I40 in the Morganton area that were delayed, but it seems we are past the delayed date.  How can I find the current planned dates?

Thanks.

They are still in the STIP, but they have been delayed until 2029 or later. I was disappointed and surprised about the US 64 interchange being delayed that long.

This should take you to a map of current STIP projects. https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cb02f4f828974670ad01bb83be91b18c)

NCDOT was supposed to release draft scores for the next STIP at the end of August....

Yeah, I was hoping the list and scores would be released by now…

It's looking like it may not happen, or at least no new projects will be added. From the August Board of Transportation meeting minutes (https://www.ncdot.gov/about-us/board-offices/boards/board-transportation/Archive/202108_Minutes.pdf):

Quote
Chairman Fox asked Leigh Wing, STIP Eastern Region Manager and Jason Schronce, Strategic Prioritization Office Manager to provide an update on Strategic Prioritization (SPOT) and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Ms. Wing reviewed information provided at the two previous Board meetings. Ms. Wing reviewed 450 projects have been identified to be updated which equates to over 1,000 estimates for the various phases needing updating. She reviewed again that, as a result of those updated estimates, most of the 22 funding buckets are substantially overprogrammed. [emphasis added] As a reminder, she shared that the current STIP is 2020-2029. The next draft of the STIP (2024-2033) is scheduled for release December 2022. September 2023 is the targeted timeframe that the board will be asked to consider the STIP (2024-2033). She then turned it over to Jason to give an update on the P6.0 Workgroup. Mr. Schronce came forward to provide an update on the recent July 19th P6.0 Workgroup meeting. He shared the meeting focused on the four major questions that were presented in last month’s Board meeting. Mr. Schronce shared the recommendation from the Workgroup to halt P6.0 after quantitative scoring and not proceed with the planned local input point process. Stopping the P6.0 schedule means that projects in the future 2024-2033 STIP would only be comprised from those in the existing 2020-2029 STIP. [emphasis added] Mr. Schronce shared several main points with members.
  • The SPOT Office continues to finalize P6.0 quantitative scores and will provide them to the planning partners for guidance on future project submittals.
  • The P6.0 Workgroup plans to meet monthly for the remainder of the year to develop recommendations for balancing and scheduling of the future 2024-2033 STIP. Throughout the process, Mr. Schronce stated he would continue to update the Board on the group’s progress.

So, long story short, if I remember everything correctly... the General Assembly wanted more highway projects completed. NCDOT said OK. NCDOT said we'll have this money in our budget, no problem. NCDOT programs a bunch of new projects for the next decade. Hurricanes Matthew and Florence happen, causing hundreds of millions in damage. Other major storm events happen across the state. The Map Act lawsuit was settled and NCDOT had to pay out a billion dollars in claims. Then COVID happened and everyone stopped driving, nearly eliminating their gas tax revenue. Now inflation is through the roof and the cost estimates for projects are going up, up and up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 04, 2021, 06:51:48 PM
^

Quote
It will also mean drivers will have at least three lanes in either direction of I-40 between Johnston and Guilford counties.
I-40 will now be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greensboro

And looking at a bigger picture - the I-40/I-85 corridor combined will be at least 6 lanes between Raleigh and Greenville, SC (pending completion of widening between Spartanburg, SC and NC) - almost 300 miles in length.

Still have the unfunded 10 mile section between SC and Kings Mountain, but close enough.
Actually, you are correct on that. However, at least a consistent corridor will exist between Raleigh and Charlotte. Obviously, the long term goal is a 6+ lane interstate highway between Raleigh and Atlanta, GA, once South Carolina begins the remaining portion south towards Georgia, and then Georgia's ongoing projects towards South Carolina.

As far as I know Georgia has no stated plans to widen I-85 from its newest section, West of Commerce to the SC line. And with Atlanta's express lanes being built over the next 15 years, it will be a long time before GDOT takes on another big project of this scale. They don't tackle more than one big project at a time, so for the next 20 years forget I-85 widening to SC
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 08, 2021, 09:29:21 AM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on September 08, 2021, 10:58:15 AM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.
Fun fact for people who want to know where this actually goes to.
SCL used to own the Dunn Erwin Railroad from 1903-1969, where it was acquired by Durham and Southern. DS sold that railroad to CSX, while the Dunn-Erwin RR became a part of Aberdeen and Rockfish from 1985-2000, where they dismantled it. Dunn-Durham was abandoned in 1987 and removed tracks in 1999.  :wow:
It took an HOUR+ for cars to pass through the railroad and get on 421 from NC 217.
My grandmother said to take 17th st to Old Stage RD S to get to Lillington.  :cool:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 08, 2021, 03:08:35 PM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.


I may have too many commitments for my planned RDU Meet to consider including these bridges, but I should at least include them as places to check out.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 08, 2021, 03:21:19 PM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.

Fun fact for people who want to know where this actually goes to.
SCL used to own the Dunn Erwin Railroad from 1903-1969, where it was acquired by Durham and Southern. DS sold that railroad to CSX, while the Dunn-Erwin RR became a part of Aberdeen and Rockfish from 1985-2000, where they dismantled it. Dunn-Durham was abandoned in 1987 and removed tracks in 1999.  :wow:

Good info, but not quite where this bridge is located.  The "mainline" NCRR tracks through downtown Durham were also part of the Duke Belt Line, which once wrapped around the west side of downtown.  When there were as many as four or five tracks in this area, the northernmost were part of the Seaboard (Duke Belt Line) and the southernmost were part of Southern (NCRR).  You can still see the Southern Railway brass emblem mounted on the left side of the bridge.  There was a Seaboard logo on the other side back when I last looked, and it may still be there now.  CSXT no longer operates here, but they do have trackage rights just east of here between the Durham & Northern subdivision (parallel to Fayetteville Street) and the Durham & Southern subdivision (which comes off of NS' East Durham Yard).  There was also a former branch off of the Durham & Southern that came right up through the American Tobacco plant (almost perpendicular to Blackwell Street) and ended at Pettigrew Street (technically, a level below the NCRR "mainline").
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on September 08, 2021, 08:56:06 PM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.

Fun fact for people who want to know where this actually goes to.
SCL used to own the Dunn Erwin Railroad from 1903-1969, where it was acquired by Durham and Southern. DS sold that railroad to CSX, while the Dunn-Erwin RR became a part of Aberdeen and Rockfish from 1985-2000, where they dismantled it. Dunn-Durham was abandoned in 1987 and removed tracks in 1999.  :wow:

Good info, but not quite where this bridge is located.  The "mainline" NCRR tracks through downtown Durham were also part of the Duke Belt Line, which once wrapped around the west side of downtown.  When there were as many as four or five tracks in this area, the northernmost were part of the Seaboard (Duke Belt Line) and the southernmost were part of Southern (NCRR).  You can still see the Southern Railway brass emblem mounted on the left side of the bridge.  There was a Seaboard logo on the other side back when I last looked, and it may still be there now.  CSXT no longer operates here, but they do have trackage rights just east of here between the Durham & Northern subdivision (parallel to Fayetteville Street) and the Durham & Southern subdivision (which comes off of NS' East Durham Yard).  There was also a former branch off of the Durham & Southern that came right up through the American Tobacco plant (almost perpendicular to Blackwell Street) and ended at Pettigrew Street (technically, a level below the NCRR "mainline").
Didnt even know that! :wow:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2021, 02:51:52 PM
Ocracoke ferry routes will begin their fall schedules on Sept. 14.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-09-fall-ferry-schedules.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-09-fall-ferry-schedules.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 09, 2021, 05:12:07 PM
Tight squeeze in downtown Durham early this morning.
https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/ (https://www.wral.com/truck-removed-from-railroad-bridge-in-downtown-durham/19864021/)

Not nearly as famous as the 11-foot-8 (plus 8) Gregson Street canopener railroad overpass just west of Downtown Durham, but perhaps more imposing South Roxboro Street railroad overpass for Business US-15/US-501 northbound at the east edge of Downtown.  Although this bridge is still on the North Carolina Rail Road corridor, it was originally owned and maintained by the Seaboard Air Line (later SCL and now CSX Transportation).  Some 15 years ago or so, NCRR was trying to get control of the CSXT bridges in downtown Durham as there was little or no CSX traffic remaining on the trackage through downtown.  Not sure whatever became of that effort. 

Anywhoosit, this concrete structure has a posted clearance of 11-foot-4 on a major arterial into downtown.  Good thing that you can pull out the valve stems to get out of this one.

Fun fact for people who want to know where this actually goes to.
SCL used to own the Dunn Erwin Railroad from 1903-1969, where it was acquired by Durham and Southern. DS sold that railroad to CSX, while the Dunn-Erwin RR became a part of Aberdeen and Rockfish from 1985-2000, where they dismantled it. Dunn-Durham was abandoned in 1987 and removed tracks in 1999.  :wow:

Good info, but not quite where this bridge is located.  The "mainline" NCRR tracks through downtown Durham were also part of the Duke Belt Line, which once wrapped around the west side of downtown.  When there were as many as four or five tracks in this area, the northernmost were part of the Seaboard (Duke Belt Line) and the southernmost were part of Southern (NCRR).  You can still see the Southern Railway brass emblem mounted on the left side of the bridge.  There was a Seaboard logo on the other side back when I last looked, and it may still be there now.  CSXT no longer operates here, but they do have trackage rights just east of here between the Durham & Northern subdivision (parallel to Fayetteville Street) and the Durham & Southern subdivision (which comes off of NS' East Durham Yard).  There was also a former branch off of the Durham & Southern that came right up through the American Tobacco plant (almost perpendicular to Blackwell Street) and ended at Pettigrew Street (technically, a level below the NCRR "mainline").

Didnt even know that! :wow:

Oops.  The abandoned trackage into the American Tobacco complex (now the American Tobacco Trail) was actually a different railroad, the Durham and South Carolina (which was never completed into South Carolina).  That wasn't Seaboard, but rather part of the old Norfolk Southern (later Southern).  It was mostly abandoned a few years after Southern and N&W merged into the new Norfolk Southern.  This ran parallel to the Durham and Southern, rather than connecting.  There's a really cool footbridge arch over I-40 taking the American Tobacco Trail into Southpointe Mall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on September 09, 2021, 05:31:00 PM
NC 55 Closing Overnight 9/13 through 9/19 for NC 540 girder work
No link could be provided.
It's on a VMS going down NC 55 this afternoon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 10, 2021, 12:44:11 PM
Closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange this weekend as part of the widening/improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-10-i-440-western-blvd-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-10-i-440-western-blvd-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 11, 2021, 08:07:18 AM
I noticed that Google has recently updated some of their Street View imagery around Wake County with imagery collected this summer. The latest imagery had been from 2018-2019. Good views of the major construction projects going on, like the I-40 widening, NC-540 extension, I-440 widening, and the East End Connector. The counties they listed for collection this year are: New Hanover, Pender, Brunswick, Columbus, Onslow, Halifax, Edgecombe, Nash, Wilson, Franklin, Wake, and Johnston. Durham isn't listed and there is imagery there, so may be updated in a few other places as well.

Edit: Apparently they were all over the state, because there is imagery from the Shelby Bypass in Cleveland County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 11, 2021, 08:41:31 AM
However, the images of the eastern part of the Shelby bypass are about 18 months out of date.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 11, 2021, 08:52:31 AM
However, the images of the eastern part of the Shelby bypass are about 18 months out of date.

Some are showing up from 2021. Just have to click around a bit and check the date slider at the top. NC 18 (https://goo.gl/maps/3wxp5JFjAU73pgZU6), NC 150 (https://goo.gl/maps/7DxGQRH98izP2MkA6), NC 180 (https://goo.gl/maps/9hKy5prK379UZ4eg8).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 11, 2021, 08:51:21 PM
However, the images of the eastern part of the Shelby bypass are about 18 months out of date.

Some are showing up from 2021. Just have to click around a bit and check the date slider at the top. NC 18 (https://goo.gl/maps/3wxp5JFjAU73pgZU6), NC 150 (https://goo.gl/maps/7DxGQRH98izP2MkA6), NC 180 (https://goo.gl/maps/9hKy5prK379UZ4eg8).
Part of Wilson and the new highways as well. They seemed to not have captured the coastal cities like Wilmington and Kill Devil Hills. However, some are showing up in Greenville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 11, 2021, 09:00:10 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
These will answer your question since the Street View has been updated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.816057,-78.247064,3a,50.5y,301.73h,90.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHG9b6wqAeWHa8aQk3BETNA!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7894788,-78.1384962,3a,75y,151.21h,92.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D152.09032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6014795,-77.5629357,3a,48.1y,141.8h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D202.0736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Need to be replaced cause it can cause confusion
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on September 12, 2021, 07:01:44 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/BodxtVSWGwxvCtVD6
Time for Google to update the images of US 17 in Wilmington.  The US Highway is no longer on the freeway in Wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 12, 2021, 11:35:44 AM
^ The imagery there is updated… you’re linked to an older date.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 12, 2021, 05:18:18 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BodxtVSWGwxvCtVD6
Time for Google to update the images of US 17 in Wilmington.  The US Highway is no longer on the freeway in Wilmington.

That link was old. Sprjus4 is right. The signage has been updated to include NC 140 WEST and greened out the word "BUSINESS" above US 17 SOUTH signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on September 12, 2021, 10:08:00 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
These will answer your question since the Street View has been updated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.816057,-78.247064,3a,50.5y,301.73h,90.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHG9b6wqAeWHa8aQk3BETNA!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7894788,-78.1384962,3a,75y,151.21h,92.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D152.09032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6014795,-77.5629357,3a,48.1y,141.8h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D202.0736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Need to be replaced cause it can cause confusion

That 264 sign has my home town on it. Though small its use as a control city keeps it in front of lots of eyes on the interstates and US highways alike. It's also the origin or end of 2 state highways 561, and 581 (technically a few miles east).

Alert the DOT that this is an urgent repair item.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on September 12, 2021, 11:42:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/BodxtVSWGwxvCtVD6
Time for Google to update the images of US 17 in Wilmington.  The US Highway is no longer on the freeway in Wilmington.

That link was old. Sprjus4 is right. The signage has been updated to include NC 140 WEST and greened out the word "BUSINESS" above US 17 SOUTH signage.

It was the default link that Google had me on when I went to the maps of the area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on September 13, 2021, 07:37:23 PM
The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 13, 2021, 07:58:17 PM
The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch. 
Thus by extension, the new Yadkin River Bridge is complete as well?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 13, 2021, 08:06:25 PM
The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch.


Is it now 6 lanes or 8 lanes through that stretch towards Exit 180?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on September 13, 2021, 09:10:18 PM
The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch. 
Thus by extension, the new Yadkin River Bridge is complete as well?

Yes indeed, and they added lighting around the interchanges as well.







The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch.


Is it now 6 lanes or 8 lanes through that stretch towards Exit 180?

Six lanes
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 14, 2021, 01:30:45 AM
The widening project on interstate 40 between mile markers 180 and 182 is wrapping up.  The extra lanes are now open in that stretch.


Is it now 6 lanes or 8 lanes through that stretch towards Exit 180?

Six lanes
[/quote]

I will have to check it out one day. With I-40/I-77 interchange under construction in which I believe it will be 6 lanes on I-40, they should just extend the 6 laning of I-40 from Yadkin River Bridge to I-40/I-77 interchange area, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 14, 2021, 01:46:15 AM
Traffic on 40 is so heavy that they need 6 lanes to exit 94 now and 8 between 121 and 130, and possibly 103 to 105
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 14, 2021, 08:23:24 AM
Widening I-40 from Bermuda Run to Statesville would be overkill at this point as it's less than 40,000 AADT until you get to Statesville. There's more traffic on the other side from Statesville to Hickory, and from there to Morganton.

It's unfortunate that the current widening on I-40 at Statesville falls a bit short on the west side of the interchange since the lanes begin and end on the east side of Exit 150. They should have taken the opportunity to widen and improve to Exit 148. Those are some crappy and outdated interchanges. Nearly every bridge on I-40 between Hickory and Statesville lacks shoulders. Many of the ones between Morganton and Hickory are being replaced or are scheduled to be in the next several years. That has to be one of the oldest sections of I-40 in the state.

Last I saw, one section of the widening project in Hickory is still in the STIP, but scheduled for "post-year" and will probably be subjected to reprioritization. I think there is/was going to be a feasibility study for widening between US 64 in Morganton and Hickory, but I wouldn't expect that to happen in the next 30 years at the current rate we're going.

Nice view from Google (https://goo.gl/maps/7MP4jExaDWHuo68L8) of the huge fly-over under construction from I-40 WB to I-77 SB.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 14, 2021, 12:07:44 PM
Widening I-40 from Bermuda Run to Statesville would be overkill at this point as it's less than 40,000 AADT until you get to Statesville. There's more traffic on the other side from Statesville to Hickory, and from there to Morganton.

It's unfortunate that the current widening on I-40 at Statesville falls a bit short on the west side of the interchange since the lanes begin and end on the east side of Exit 150. They should have taken the opportunity to widen and improve to Exit 148. Those are some crappy and outdated interchanges. Nearly every bridge on I-40 between Hickory and Statesville lacks shoulders. Many of the ones between Morganton and Hickory are being replaced or are scheduled to be in the next several years. That has to be one of the oldest sections of I-40 in the state.

Last I saw, one section of the widening project in Hickory is still in the STIP, but scheduled for "post-year" and will probably be subjected to reprioritization. I think there is/was going to be a feasibility study for widening between US 64 in Morganton and Hickory, but I wouldn't expect that to happen in the next 30 years at the current rate we're going.

Nice view from Google (https://goo.gl/maps/7MP4jExaDWHuo68L8) of the huge fly-over under construction from I-40 WB to I-77 SB.


Not overkill. It is to prepare for possibly increasing capacity in the long term. It is probably one of the last stretches to be widened anyways. But yeah I do agree that I-40 needs to be 6 laned from Statesville and going west towards Hickory area. Isn't I-40 scheduled to have the interchange with US 64 in Morganton rebuilt anytime soon?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on September 14, 2021, 07:06:41 PM
I-40 is slated to get widened to 6 lanes from Greensboro to Winston Salem but construction is not scheduled to start until 2027.  Number one priority for I-40 in NC is getting the widening done in Johnston County (under construction) then Orange and Durham Counties (should be done in 2025), then the triad and finally out west.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 14, 2021, 07:43:20 PM
Both I-40 and US-421 (former Business 40) need to be 6 lanes between Winston-Salem and Greensboro with current traffic volumes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on September 16, 2021, 09:25:33 PM
I figure it varies from state to state, but is there a AADT you would look for before a highway needs 6 lanes?  8 Lanes?   I was looking at the AADT's from 2019, and some of the numbers surprised me. I was surprised to see the stretch of 40 between Hickory and Conover ranged from 58,000 to 68,000.   Interstate 40 through Winston Salem ranged from 98-128,000.   Not sure if there has been any talk of widening that stretch to 8 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 16, 2021, 11:12:07 PM
There's far more variables than "whichever state you're in".  Things like truck percentage, directional distribution, hourly distribution, distance between interchanges, and many other factors.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 17, 2021, 12:08:27 AM
40 is very saturated in truck percentage
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 21, 2021, 01:44:26 PM
Latest update regarding NCDOT's budget problems.

https://wr.al/1LRBT (https://wr.al/1LRBT)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 27, 2021, 11:09:07 PM
I wonder why a bascule bridge wasn't considered.

And according to that plan, the old one is to be demolished i'm sure.

The roadgeek in me don't mind a new swing bridge at all  :bigass:

But yeah, I was about to ask the same thing you did. Maybe the residents in that area don't want anything in the air there, no matter how tall (short!!) the draw span is. How many times does the bridge open during the week anyway?

Or maybe it's a matter of cost. Which draw option is cheaper?
Forgot to reply to you, but Alternative D-Mod would be the cheapest alternative. That would have been a fixed-span bridge compared to the more expensive draw-span bridge.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-business/Documents/us-17-business-fonsi.pdf

D-Mod: $18,000,000

B (15 feet): $31,000,000

I'm surprised NCDOT went with the more expensive option!

It's like doing the same for the Kinston bypass....too...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 28, 2021, 09:50:48 AM
Did you even read the link you provided?  It explains why NCDOT went with Alt B.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on September 28, 2021, 10:48:57 AM
Did you even read the link you provided?  It explains why NCDOT went with Alt B.
Yes, and it's because the city of Hertford and others all supported it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 28, 2021, 04:13:45 PM
Beginning early Thursday morning, there will be a traffic pattern change at the I-440/Western Boulevard interchange. Also noted is that the conversion to a DDI is expected to be complete in November.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-28-i-440-western-blvd-loop-closure-ramp-shift.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-28-i-440-western-blvd-loop-closure-ramp-shift.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 30, 2021, 08:14:35 AM
Raleigh is putting finishing touches on it's plans for widening Six Forks Road, which is heavily traveled.

https://www.wral.com/raleigh-finalizing-plans-to-widen-six-forks-road/19901454/ (https://www.wral.com/raleigh-finalizing-plans-to-widen-six-forks-road/19901454/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 30, 2021, 10:32:59 AM
Two contracts have been awarded for resurfacing two sections of I-95 (20 miles total) in Wilson and Halifax counties. Work can start this fall. The section in Halifax County is expected to take 2 years to complete and the one in Wilson County will be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-30-i-95-resurfacing-contracts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-30-i-95-resurfacing-contracts.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on September 30, 2021, 11:26:11 AM
Two contracts have been awarded for resurfacing two sections of I-95 (20 miles total) in Wilson and Halifax counties. Work can start this fall. The section in Halifax County is expected to take 2 years to complete and the one in Wilson County will be complete by the end of 2022.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-30-i-95-resurfacing-contracts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-30-i-95-resurfacing-contracts.aspx)
It's about time! That is the MOST bumpiest route I've seen! Built in the 1970s, this should be rebuilt!  :spin: :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Last month outside of the old terminal (now private/charter terminal) of Concord-Padgett Regional Airport.  I came across, what is at least new to me, this unique Welcome to North Carolina sign.  This version celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' historic flight.  I do not recall seeing this anywhere in North Carolina at that time.  Could it have been limited to airports?  Has anyone else seen this design?  Personally, I really like it.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51436375677_8d44becb68_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mnfStp)A different type of Welcome to North Carolina Sign (https://flic.kr/p/2mnfStp) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 03, 2021, 10:03:07 AM
Last month outside of the old terminal (now private/charter terminal) of Concord-Padgett Regional Airport.  I came across, what is at least new to me, this unique Welcome to North Carolina sign.  This version celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' historic flight.  I do not recall seeing this anywhere in North Carolina at that time.  Could it have been limited to airports?  Has anyone else seen this design?  Personally, I really like it.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51436375677_8d44becb68_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mnfStp)A different type of Welcome to North Carolina Sign (https://flic.kr/p/2mnfStp) by Adam Prince (https://www.flickr.com/photos/adamontheroad/), on Flickr
Not me.
(https://storage13.openstreetcam.org/files/photo/2021/8/5/proc/3762505_234682cb974a9821e47afc7a9d96aaea.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 03, 2021, 10:34:32 AM
Another existed at the Wright Brothers Memorial.  GMSV not present to see if it is still there - waymarking.com/waymarks/WMF9E1_Welcome_to_North_Carolina_First_In_Flight_Kitty_Hawk_NC

2014 GMSV shows one at Beaufort's airport - https://goo.gl/maps/h3bzMxnvcjCUdomJ8

Burlington-Almanance had a double sided posting that was removed btw 2018-21 - https://goo.gl/maps/iuduhyPqqVArYpY39

I don't recall seeing one of these on any border crossing before...

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 04, 2021, 05:50:27 PM
NCDOT has awarded 3 contracts for resurfacing several roads in Wake and Person counties. Noteworthy is the contract for resurfacing the freeway section of Wade Avenue between I-40 and I-440, which includes all the ramps at the Edwards Mill Road interchange.

Work on that particular contract can start in March 2022, and is expected to be complete by November that year.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-04-wade-ave-central-wake-person-county-resurfacing.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-04-wade-ave-central-wake-person-county-resurfacing.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 06, 2021, 07:19:00 AM
A study is being done by the Capital Area MPO of a proposed US-401 bypass around Fuquay-Varina, as well as widening US-401 to 4 lanes between Fuquay-Varina and Lillington.

https://www.wral.com/amid-surging-growth-possibility-of-us-401-bypass-has-fuquay-varina-torn/19911141/ (https://www.wral.com/amid-surging-growth-possibility-of-us-401-bypass-has-fuquay-varina-torn/19911141/)

Project site: https://wspgeo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=aa47d9e1c2094091aeb25ae6b88490aa/ (https://wspgeo.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=aa47d9e1c2094091aeb25ae6b88490aa/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 06, 2021, 11:00:31 AM
^I wonder how useful this would be if NC 55 is not given a full bypass as well.  I have a hard time convincing myself that Judd Pkwy will be adequate for NC 55.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 06, 2021, 12:49:41 PM
NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract that will modernize and widen I-95 in the Lumberton area between I-74 and mile marker 21, work starts next summer:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-06-i-95-widening-lumberton.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-06-i-95-widening-lumberton.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on October 06, 2021, 02:25:38 PM
NCDOT has awarded a design-build contract that will modernize and widen I-95 in the Lumberton area between I-74 and mile marker 21, work starts next summer:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-06-i-95-widening-lumberton.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-06-i-95-widening-lumberton.aspx)

North of mile marker 21, the construction on modernizing and widening I-95 from MM 21 to MM 37 should begin in fall 2022 with the awarding of the contract to take place in July 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 06, 2021, 10:23:52 PM
A question for the mods/Admins: Can we move the I-95 widening discussion to this (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26766.100) thread?

And when talking about I-95 widening, I can see they are FOCUSED on widening the dated sections!  :clap:

Now, How about from I-40 to US-301? When will that begin (other than the Four Oaks interchange)?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on October 06, 2021, 11:57:03 PM
The next section of 540 loop completion is 35% complete and they said the new turbine interchange for 540, US70 and I-40 sits on 500 acres of land for one interchange although it's a complex one.

They said all of the transition circles will allow for 55mph speed at the interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 08, 2021, 08:39:57 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
These will answer your question since the Street View has been updated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.816057,-78.247064,3a,50.5y,301.73h,90.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHG9b6wqAeWHa8aQk3BETNA!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7894788,-78.1384962,3a,75y,151.21h,92.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D152.09032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6014795,-77.5629357,3a,48.1y,141.8h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D202.0736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Need to be replaced cause it can cause confusion
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7895206,-78.1387674,3a,75y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suye28EUARlPyKAieJOFe4w!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7895206,-78.1387674,3a,75y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suye28EUARlPyKAieJOFe4w!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
updated with new sign
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 08, 2021, 08:42:51 PM
After going to Raleigh today... There are some damaged (and missing) signs.

Missing
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6011734,-77.5625291,3a,44.3y,175.7h,89.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYI6ptEtb9Lmr1b2iOol7bg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Damaged
___________________

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.78953,-78.13873,3a,15y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ8jZYhiRrzO1TeueMu5Mog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8161024,-78.2473157,3a,75y,305.04h,93.21t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOtQMvjX29cTubF_FZ1gbAA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

i see no problems with any of those signs...
These will answer your question since the Street View has been updated.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.816057,-78.247064,3a,50.5y,301.73h,90.89t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHG9b6wqAeWHa8aQk3BETNA!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7894788,-78.1384962,3a,75y,151.21h,92.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8Y4vrgx4UL7Ibk8c-Nbe6w%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D152.09032%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6014795,-77.5629357,3a,48.1y,141.8h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DJYFO5ZoNFm5cbGw69M0vgQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D202.0736%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Need to be replaced cause it can cause confusion
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7895206,-78.1387674,3a,75y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suye28EUARlPyKAieJOFe4w!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7895206,-78.1387674,3a,75y,130.59h,92.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suye28EUARlPyKAieJOFe4w!2e0!5s20210901T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
updated with new sign
Did see that, it's great that it has been replaced. As well as the Louisburg / Selma sign. I think the Wesley Church Rd sign is still missing though...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 16, 2021, 04:25:41 AM
To me, I think building I-40 with a 46 foot median north of I-95 to Raleigh (and west of Raleigh) was a mistake..... They should have built it with a 70 or 84 foot median for future widening, that way it wouldn't be so problematic with replacing the bridges and extending the construction time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 16, 2021, 11:44:34 AM
^ A 46 foot median can accommodate a third lane in each direction, fully paved left shoulder, and concrete median barrier.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 16, 2021, 01:09:24 PM
^ A 46 foot median can accommodate a third lane in each direction, fully paved left shoulder, and concrete median barrier.
Yes, but they had to do a lot of shifting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 18, 2021, 05:25:45 PM
https://www.wral.com/police-speeding-car-slammed-into-bridge-abutment-in-raleigh-killing-5-teens/19930043/ (https://www.wral.com/police-speeding-car-slammed-into-bridge-abutment-in-raleigh-killing-5-teens/19930043/)
Looks like the bridge is out! :pan:
Dang car sped and :ded: the bridge pier!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 18, 2021, 05:27:45 PM
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/2-major-road-closures-in-downtown-raleigh-scheduled-to-close-tonight-until-tomorrow-morning/?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=t.co (https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/2-major-road-closures-in-downtown-raleigh-scheduled-to-close-tonight-until-tomorrow-morning/?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=t.co)
Road closures expected for W Peace and W North St
Tomorrow morning it will be back up. :wow:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 18, 2021, 06:11:44 PM
https://www.wral.com/police-speeding-car-slammed-into-bridge-abutment-in-raleigh-killing-5-teens/19930043/ (https://www.wral.com/police-speeding-car-slammed-into-bridge-abutment-in-raleigh-killing-5-teens/19930043/)
Looks like the bridge is out! :pan:
Dang car sped and :ded: the bridge pier!
Teens are not safe drivers  :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 19, 2021, 07:46:06 PM
More rumble strips are coming, especially on undivided highways (including two-lane ones). We are looking more like Michigan I tell you!

I have never in my life seen rumble strips on a two-lane highway. So it seems like NCDOT is taking the next step forward.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 19, 2021, 09:23:16 PM
More rumble strips are coming, especially on undivided highways (including two-lane ones). We are looking more like Michigan I tell you!

I have never in my life seen rumble strips on a two-lane highway. So it seems like NCDOT is taking the next step forward.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx

They are all over 2-lane highways in PA.

EDIT:  Hopefully, this is a sign that the NC 119 Bypass of Mebane will open soon. (https://www.mebaneenterprise.com/news/article_c24c98f0-30df-11ec-850c-c7f5b8e29b13.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 20, 2021, 09:09:42 AM
Heads up for Raleigh folks on here: a section of Oberlin Road in Raleigh will be closed for 3 months.

https://www.wral.com/stretch-of-oberlin-road-in-raleigh-closing-for-3-months/19934893/ (https://www.wral.com/stretch-of-oberlin-road-in-raleigh-closing-for-3-months/19934893/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 20, 2021, 09:48:19 AM
Hopefully, this is a sign that the NC 119 Bypass of Mebane will open soon. (https://www.mebaneenterprise.com/news/article_c24c98f0-30df-11ec-850c-c7f5b8e29b13.html)

Finally!  I believe that this DDI has been "under construction" since 2017.  There's not been any meaningful work on the DDI in years, but occasionally we see the NC-119 Relocation contractors out working on signals or signage adjustments.  Hopefully, they will finish the landscaping and get everything back to "normal".  As best as I can tell, nobody has been able to mow around the DDI since construction started.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 20, 2021, 10:11:56 AM
More rumble strips are coming, especially on undivided highways (including two-lane ones). We are looking more like Michigan I tell you!

I have never in my life seen rumble strips on a two-lane highway. So it seems like NCDOT is taking the next step forward.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx

They are all over 2-lane highways in PA.

EDIT:  Hopefully, this is a sign that the NC 119 Bypass of Mebane will open soon. (https://www.mebaneenterprise.com/news/article_c24c98f0-30df-11ec-850c-c7f5b8e29b13.html)

Can think of several examples in NC off the top of my head. NC 49 between Charlotte and Asheboro. NC 9 in Polk County. US 64 between Mocksville and Asheboro, and pretty sure between Rutherfordton and Morganton, but can't confirm it in street view. Probably on many other roads across the state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 20, 2021, 11:41:40 AM
Alot of NC18 between Morganton and Shelby as well
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on October 20, 2021, 09:32:06 PM
I have never in my life seen rumble strips on a two-lane highway. So it seems like NCDOT is taking the next step forward.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx

NJDOT did centerline strips a few years ago on state highways. Some counties even followed suit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 20, 2021, 11:08:27 PM
New Street View now posted on the full length of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass from September 2021.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 20, 2021, 11:43:20 PM
New Street View now posted on the full length of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass from September 2021.
Parts of Raleigh and Charlotte have them too. I'm still waiting for the Southwest Bypass and the coastal counties.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 21, 2021, 12:07:26 AM
New Street View now posted on the full length of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass from September 2021.
Parts of Raleigh and Charlotte have them too. I'm still waiting for the Southwest Bypass and the coastal counties.
I'm surprised they don't have the NC-11 Bypass, especially given they updated the US-264 freeway. Either they never drove along it, or it just hasn't been posted yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 21, 2021, 12:40:12 AM
New Street View now posted on the full length of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass from September 2021.
Parts of Raleigh and Charlotte have them too. I'm still waiting for the Southwest Bypass and the coastal counties.
I'm surprised they don't have the NC-11 Bypass, especially given they updated the US-264 freeway. Either they never drove along it, or it just hasn't been posted yet.
I forgot about Fayetteville and I-95 by the way... I also wonder what happened to the OxBlue street view?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 22, 2021, 08:19:39 PM
New Street View now posted on the full length of the US-64 Asheboro Bypass from September 2021.
Parts of Raleigh and Charlotte have them too. I'm still waiting for the Southwest Bypass and the coastal counties.
I'm surprised they don't have the NC-11 Bypass, especially given they updated the US-264 freeway. Either they never drove along it, or it just hasn't been posted yet.

I was scratching my head on that one, too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on October 23, 2021, 12:28:54 AM
I have never in my life seen rumble strips on a two-lane highway. So it seems like NCDOT is taking the next step forward.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-19-rumble-strips-installed-division-2.aspx

NJDOT did centerline strips a few years ago on state highways. Some counties even followed suit.

California has always incorporated circular raised bumps as part of their lane striping. They protrude up. I think of rumble strips as being depressed strips like on the shoulders.

Why haven't they indtroduced glow in the dark striping paint? Maybe the phosphers aren't abundant enoough?

I remember when NC"s secondary roads first got yellow reflectors in the center yellow line. It was in the late 80s I think.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 23, 2021, 12:54:33 AM
I40 west is closed between exit 144 and 140, a large hole is in the bridge deck over Buleah Rd.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 24, 2021, 03:25:41 AM
This is new...

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/dickinson-avenue-improvements/Pages/default.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on October 24, 2021, 09:05:52 PM
I40 west is closed between exit 144 and 140, a large hole is in the bridge deck over Buleah Rd.

It's a mess too.  They're directing traffic on to US 70 from Old Mountain to Sharon School.

Luckily I've lived in Iredell County and know Island Ford Road, which runs on the north side of I-40, also goes to Sharon School, and I got off at Stamey Farm yesterday when I went to my sister-in-law's house in Hickory. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 24, 2021, 10:59:25 PM
I40 west is closed between exit 144 and 140, a large hole is in the bridge deck over Buleah Rd.

It's a mess too.  They're directing traffic on to US 70 from Old Mountain to Sharon School.

Luckily I've lived in Iredell County and know Island Ford Road, which runs on the north side of I-40, also goes to Sharon School, and I got off at Stamey Farm yesterday when I went to my sister-in-law's house in Hickory.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article255215191.html
https://www.wbtv.com/2021/10/24/it-was-backed-up-so-bad-large-hole-i-40-overpass-near-statesville-creating-traffic-logjam/

Dang, that's a big hole.
https://twitter.com/IredellFirewire/status/1451556206011629603
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 24, 2021, 11:20:51 PM
HOLY FUCK!!  :-o :-o :-o
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 25, 2021, 12:17:29 PM
I40 west is closed between exit 144 and 140, a large hole is in the bridge deck over Buleah Rd.
It's a mess too.  They're directing traffic on to US 70 from Old Mountain to Sharon School.

Luckily I've lived in Iredell County and know Island Ford Road, which runs on the north side of I-40, also goes to Sharon School, and I got off at Stamey Farm yesterday when I went to my sister-in-law's house in Hickory.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article255215191.html
https://www.wbtv.com/2021/10/24/it-was-backed-up-so-bad-large-hole-i-40-overpass-near-statesville-creating-traffic-logjam/

Dang, that's a big hole.
https://twitter.com/IredellFirewire/status/1451556206011629603
NCDOT posted a press release this morning saying I-40 is back open, a day earlier than planned:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-25-update-i-40-statesville-reopens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-25-update-i-40-statesville-reopens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 25, 2021, 03:16:41 PM
I can see those bridges will need to be replaced soon. Construction won't begin there for a while...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 25, 2021, 03:40:20 PM
I'm wondering how thick those slabs are? Given the age of those bridges I'm sure they're pretty worn down from so much traffic over the years. NCDOT generally just does patchwork on a lot of these old bridges.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on October 25, 2021, 03:53:09 PM
I40 west is closed between exit 144 and 140, a large hole is in the bridge deck over Buleah Rd.

It's a mess too.  They're directing traffic on to US 70 from Old Mountain to Sharon School.

Luckily I've lived in Iredell County and know Island Ford Road, which runs on the north side of I-40, also goes to Sharon School, and I got off at Stamey Farm yesterday when I went to my sister-in-law's house in Hickory.

is this still going on? I drove over I-40 on Old Mountain Rd today and it all seemed normal. I can't imagine that bridge is safe to use now its only been 2 days.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 27, 2021, 02:53:15 AM
WTF is this?!

I-40 ALT?!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.797532,-78.1695222,14.13z

(https://i.imgur.com/3fnpg9D.png)

Oh god, here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4732702,-78.3773913,14.04z) too.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on October 27, 2021, 07:18:25 PM
What do you expect?  Google has people from probably India editing for them who have 0 knowledge about US highways, and thus stuff like this gets added. :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 27, 2021, 07:33:29 PM
What do you expect?  Google has people from probably India editing for them who have 0 knowledge about US highways, and thus stuff like this gets added. :pan:
Nothing unless it's for bypassing the I-40 construction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on October 27, 2021, 07:48:38 PM
What do you expect?  Google has people from probably India editing for them who have 0 knowledge about US highways, and thus stuff like this gets added. :pan:
Nothing unless it's for bypassing the I-40 construction.

A few routes got “Alt I-40”  signs at the start of the current I-40 construction project for routing assurance in the event of major backups.  I know US 70 business has such signs, and I presume I-87/US 64/US 264 got the same signs.  So the techs editing the street view for some of these probably saw the signs and added the labels to the ma-s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 27, 2021, 08:07:13 PM
What do you expect?  Google has people from probably India editing for them who have 0 knowledge about US highways, and thus stuff like this gets added. :pan:
Nothing unless it's for bypassing the I-40 construction.

A few routes got “Alt I-40”  signs at the start of the current I-40 construction project for routing assurance in the event of major backups.  I know US 70 business has such signs, and I presume I-87/US 64/US 264 got the same signs.  So the techs editing the street view for some of these probably saw the signs and added the labels to the ma-s.
I see now, makes a little reason, but it's 30 minutes longer and double the mileage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on October 27, 2021, 11:45:29 PM
What do you expect?  Google has people from probably India editing for them who have 0 knowledge about US highways, and thus stuff like this gets added. :pan:
Nothing unless it's for bypassing the I-40 construction.

A few routes got “Alt I-40”  signs at the start of the current I-40 construction project for routing assurance in the event of major backups.  I know US 70 business has such signs, and I presume I-87/US 64/US 264 got the same signs.  So the techs editing the street view for some of these probably saw the signs and added the labels to the ma-s.
I see now, makes a little reason, but it's 30 minutes longer and double the mileage.
And some days that may be actually saving time…
Agree it was a little dumb to code it in though. It’s not a “real”  road.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2021, 02:56:18 PM
The lane drop on I-40 at the Durham/Orange county line will be changed next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-40-durham-15-501-lane-drop.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-40-durham-15-501-lane-drop.aspx)

Also, the Hatteras-Ocracoke ferry route will switch to the winter schedule beginning on November 2.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-hatteras-ferry-winter-schedules.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-hatteras-ferry-winter-schedules.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 28, 2021, 03:06:48 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2021, 03:09:26 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.

The contract for the widening was awarded almost 2 months ago.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 03:11:06 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.
It was annoying how it drops to four lanes
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 28, 2021, 03:21:04 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.
It was annoying how it drops to four lanes
Or like fuquay needing a total diamond makeover.
(https://www.scribblemaps.com/api/maps/images/450/450/xLNpRPBxpn.png)
NOTE: if it says image is being prepared, check back later. the image is just off the press.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on October 28, 2021, 03:23:13 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.

The contract for the widening was awarded almost 2 months ago.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx)

Yes I saw that. I'm just doubting it will be done in a timely manner given NCDOT's difficulties with certain things lately.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 28, 2021, 03:24:00 PM
^ The funding has already been appropriated and a contract has been awarded. The project isn’t going to be pushed back further.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on October 28, 2021, 03:30:52 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.

The contract for the widening was awarded almost 2 months ago.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-09-01-i-40-widening-orange-county.aspx)

Yes I saw that. I'm just doubting it will be done in a timely manner given NCDOT's difficulties with certain things lately.
Two lanes in each isnt enough. NCDOT made a smart move by adding two one additional lane.  :pan: :ded:
EDIT: as @sprjus4 said below, they are only making it 3 lanes, NOT 4!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on October 28, 2021, 03:32:21 PM
^ It’s only being widened to 6 lanes, not 8 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 04:22:56 PM
^ It’s only being widened to 6 lanes, not 8 lanes.
if it was being widened to 8 lanes, then it would have to be totally rebuilt.
Title: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on October 28, 2021, 07:54:41 PM
The lane drop on I-40 at the Durham/Orange county line will be changed next week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-40-durham-15-501-lane-drop.
 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-40-durham-15-501-lane-drop.aspx)

I have been saying to myself and girlfriend that this should be the setup every time we drive past it. Im glad they finally listened to me
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 28, 2021, 08:52:49 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.
That is also the right decision because the left lane drop has caused many accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on October 28, 2021, 09:29:15 PM
That is the right decision, as I don't see I-40 being 6-laned to I-85 anytime soon.
That is also the right decision because the left lane drop has caused many accidents.
It's annoying as hell and dangerous.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 29, 2021, 09:30:14 AM
As part of the I-440 improvements project, traffic on I-440 East will be shifted to a new bridge over Wade Avenue, beginning early Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-440-east-shift-new-bridge-wade-ave.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-28-i-440-east-shift-new-bridge-wade-ave.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 29, 2021, 06:16:22 PM
The Salem Parkway project was the Grand Prize winner of the 2021 America’s Transportation Awards at the (back to in-person in San Diego) AASHTO Annual Meeting on Thursday:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-29-salem-parkway-project-national-top-honors.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-10-29-salem-parkway-project-national-top-honors.aspx)

Given news from the AASHTO meeting, I checked the agenda to see about whether the Special Committee on US Route Numbering was meeting there to take up recent applications, there was no specific listing for it. The USRN website hasn't been updated since posting results of the Spring Meeting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 01, 2021, 10:09:24 PM
So, I got to encounter the new 321/85 interchange reconfiguration this morning and noted a major issue: 

Southbound on 321, an overhead BGS assembly prompts traffic to NB 85 to use the left lane, shortly before the signal to turn left, the left lane shifts left into a turn pocket and the center lane splits into a second left turn lane and a pull through lane.  Waiting for the signal, I noted on the mast arm an advisory that cars making u turns to 321N were to yield to traffic coming from the 85 SB to 321 NB ramp, the signal only allows 2 lanes of ramp traffic to turn right.  Well, I was behing 8 cars that sat unmoving in the leftmost turn lane for 3 signal cycles because the first 3 cars were making u turns into the Circle K on 321 N.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 02, 2021, 08:26:43 AM
Farmville has Sep 2021 street view!

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5923666,-77.6225203,3a,35.8y,316.95h,85.97t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sjW9Y5ucAQz3MeSBoTbX7Ew!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DjW9Y5ucAQz3MeSBoTbX7Ew%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D45.13197%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

This railroad crossing looks dangerous to me though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 02, 2021, 12:55:05 PM
A contract to resurface I-95 in Robeson County between I-74 and the SC state line has been awarded. Work will begin by January, and is expected to be finished by spring 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-02-i-95-robeson-repaving.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-02-i-95-robeson-repaving.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on November 03, 2021, 04:21:08 PM
So, I got to encounter the new 321/85 interchange reconfiguration this morning and noted a major issue: 

Southbound on 321, an overhead BGS assembly prompts traffic to NB 85 to use the left lane, shortly before the signal to turn left, the left lane shifts left into a turn pocket and the center lane splits into a second left turn lane and a pull through lane.  Waiting for the signal, I noted on the mast arm an advisory that cars making u turns to 321N were to yield to traffic coming from the 85 SB to 321 NB ramp, the signal only allows 2 lanes of ramp traffic to turn right.  Well, I was behing 8 cars that sat unmoving in the leftmost turn lane for 3 signal cycles because the first 3 cars were making u turns into the Circle K on 321 N.

Thanks for the observation, we'll take a look at it. 

(Our plans never intended for U-turns there; note that a sign restricting them will likely have little effect, other than being "enforced" by drivers behind them.  I think Radio St. is the next opportunity, as there's no turn lanes at the ramp intersection.  This was my concept to start with, so I want it to be as "perfect" as we can get it!)

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 03, 2021, 06:28:53 PM
So, I got to encounter the new 321/85 interchange reconfiguration this morning and noted a major issue: 

Southbound on 321, an overhead BGS assembly prompts traffic to NB 85 to use the left lane, shortly before the signal to turn left, the left lane shifts left into a turn pocket and the center lane splits into a second left turn lane and a pull through lane.  Waiting for the signal, I noted on the mast arm an advisory that cars making u turns to 321N were to yield to traffic coming from the 85 SB to 321 NB ramp, the signal only allows 2 lanes of ramp traffic to turn right.  Well, I was behing 8 cars that sat unmoving in the leftmost turn lane for 3 signal cycles because the first 3 cars were making u turns into the Circle K on 321 N.

Thanks for the observation, we'll take a look at it. 

(Our plans never intended for U-turns there; note that a sign restricting them will likely have little effect, other than being "enforced" by drivers behind them.  I think Radio St. is the next opportunity, as there's no turn lanes at the ramp intersection.  This was my concept to start with, so I want it to be as "perfect" as we can get it!)



Well, thank you very much.  I rarely use that intersection, just happened to be covering a shift at out Belmont store, I live near South Mountains Park.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on November 03, 2021, 07:19:51 PM
So, I got to encounter the new 321/85 interchange reconfiguration this morning and noted a major issue: 

Southbound on 321, an overhead BGS assembly prompts traffic to NB 85 to use the left lane, shortly before the signal to turn left, the left lane shifts left into a turn pocket and the center lane splits into a second left turn lane and a pull through lane.  Waiting for the signal, I noted on the mast arm an advisory that cars making u turns to 321N were to yield to traffic coming from the 85 SB to 321 NB ramp, the signal only allows 2 lanes of ramp traffic to turn right.  Well, I was behing 8 cars that sat unmoving in the leftmost turn lane for 3 signal cycles because the first 3 cars were making u turns into the Circle K on 321 N.

Thanks for the observation, we'll take a look at it. 

(Our plans never intended for U-turns there; note that a sign restricting them will likely have little effect, other than being "enforced" by drivers behind them.  I think Radio St. is the next opportunity, as there's no turn lanes at the ramp intersection.  This was my concept to start with, so I want it to be as "perfect" as we can get it!)



Well, thank you very much.  I rarely use that intersection, just happened to be covering a shift at out Belmont store, I live near South Mountains Park.

Checked with the Division Traffic Engineer, he agreed that U-turns shouldn’t be allowed and will take steps to formally ban them.  Once you see the sign change from “U-turns yield to right-turns” to a no U-turn sign, you’ll know the background work has been done.

Thanks again for your comment here.  If you see something like this (or any other concern) use the NCDOT Contact Us comment page (don’t have the link here, please Google it) to send the comment directly.  Can’t always depend on the AARoads boards to get the comment to the right person! :-)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 04, 2021, 09:54:49 AM
I imagine a U-turn ban is going to tick off some Circle K users.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on November 04, 2021, 10:20:22 AM
I imagine a U-turn ban is going to tick off some Circle K users.

Before the new interchange concept, there was a full median on US 321 in front of the Circle K, so SB access to the gas station had to do exactly what we're proposing to do now (head to Radio St. to make a U-turn.)  It's not like we're doing something "new" to them.  As our DTE said, "I’m not worried about that, the goal is to move traffic."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 04, 2021, 11:12:36 AM
I had a salvage truck in front of me and there was no movement on the green lights, I though maybe someone broke down, then all of the sudden, 3 cars u turn into the circle k lot, and I am like, what the h***.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 06, 2021, 09:58:38 PM
I am posting this twice for the most eyes to read it.


 was just home driving on the US401 4-laning project between Rolesville and Louisburg. They unbelievably have concrete curbs on what is a rural highway and the roadway is noticeably waiting for the top few inches of asphalt to be added.

The curbs might be included if it's an official superstreet like the Rolesville Bypass is.

It's unfortunate that the final 6-mile section to Louisburg had its funding delayed to right-of-way purchase in 2029.

I hope the county's state senator can "clawback" the funding sooner.

After a statewide loop from Charlotte to Wilmington on US74 then to Raleigh and back to Atlanta via US64/NC49 through Charlotte on Tryon, 77, 485 back to 85, I still admire the state's high standards for roads.

I saw workers weed-eating under guardrails, and lots of lurking state troopers too.

Would y'all join me in getting NCDOT to replace the many embarrassing faded overhead signs that only seem to exist in Raleigh on 440  and 540 near US1?

I mean they try too hard to be fair to the whole state and Raleigh is the lowest priority. The most trash and worst overhead sign conditions I saw in the entire state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 07, 2021, 03:31:33 PM
So, how will the infrastructure monies manifest itself in NC?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on November 08, 2021, 08:21:08 AM
So, how will the infrastructure monies manifest itself in NC?

It's looking like a lot of money. Simply put, anything that could be on track to start construction within the next five years probably has a good chance of receiving some funding. There is likely a timeframe for completion of projects that receive funding (guessing a decade [think that was ARRA's requirement]). Any major projects beyond that run the risk of not being completed on time.

Expect a lot of bridge rehab and replacement, interstate maintenance and other pavement rehab projects. Bigger projects that are close to being "shovel ready" may get bumped up or stay on their current schedule, but use the federal funding. E.g., completing the US 74 Shelby Bypass. It was supposed to start construction this year before being delayed, has already started (or completed) right-of-way acquisition, and is likely very close to having final plans. This frees up state funding for other projects that have been delayed, and there are a lot.

Would not be surprised to see the remainder of the I-85 widening to S.C. accelerated, big dollars for the $1 billion+ I-26 connector in Asheville, and some of the freeway conversions/upgrades around Raleigh (US 1, US 64, US 70) move back up. Things I would not expect to see are the funding and completion of I-87 (too long range). Then again, who knows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 08, 2021, 08:33:14 AM
I hope it puts any improvements to I_40 between Statesville and Morganton back in the mix.  The congestion is getting worse by the day.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 08, 2021, 03:26:56 PM
So, how will the infrastructure monies manifest itself in NC?

If only $110 billion is actually for hard-asset infrastructure like roads and bridges, how much would be allocated to NC? It seems like I-95 is one of the biggest priorities.  It was on Trump's list of top 25 infrastructure needs, you know the one campaign promise that got zero attention while in office.

With Wake county now getting so much construction, I predict there will be a long lull after current projects are finished, and US1, 64 etc. will be a long ways out.

I-85 to the SC line is likely a very low priority despite SC's widening to the State line. I don't see that area as a problematic bottleneck.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 08, 2021, 06:17:24 PM
Stay tuned: I'm sure NCDOT will announce some project schedule changes making use of the new funding. But these will have to go through some sort of bureaucratic process. Every part of the state will want its piece of the action.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 08, 2021, 06:51:00 PM
So, how will the infrastructure monies manifest itself in NC?

If only $110 billion is actually for hard-asset infrastructure like roads and bridges, how much would be allocated to NC? It seems like I-95 is one of the biggest priorities.  It was on Trump's list of top 25 infrastructure needs, you know the one campaign promise that got zero attention while in office.

With Wake county now getting so much construction, I predict there will be a long lull after current projects are finished, and US1, 64 etc. will be a long ways out.

I-85 to the SC line is likely a very low priority despite SC's widening to the State line. I don't see that area as a problematic bottleneck.

IIRC NC gets 9.5 billion over 5 years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadRebel on November 09, 2021, 07:19:56 PM
New lanes on I-485 opened today between Exit 57 (NC-16 Providence Rd) and Exit 59 (Rea Rd).

https://www.wcnc.com/article/traffic/interstate-485-general-purpose-lane-rea-road-providence-road-south-charlotte/275-0ade2393-361e-491c-90e1-6fe845151121 (https://www.wcnc.com/article/traffic/interstate-485-general-purpose-lane-rea-road-providence-road-south-charlotte/275-0ade2393-361e-491c-90e1-6fe845151121)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 11, 2021, 10:28:11 AM
Upcoming closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange this weekend. Also noted is that it's conversion to a DDI will be complete and open early Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 11, 2021, 12:09:11 PM
Upcoming closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange this weekend. Also noted is that it's conversion to a DDI will be complete and open early Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx)
Good, so they say. No more flyovers!  :ded:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 12, 2021, 06:10:54 PM
Upcoming closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange this weekend. Also noted is that it's conversion to a DDI will be complete and open early Monday morning.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-10-i-440-western-blvd-ddi-conversion.aspx)
Good, so they say. No more flyovers!  :ded:
This is a heavily used interchange and the first DDI most folks in Raleigh have seen. Stand by for complaints.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 15, 2021, 06:48:14 AM
A contract to resurface I-95 in Robeson County between I-74 and the SC state line has been awarded. Work will begin by January, and is expected to be finished by spring 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-02-i-95-robeson-repaving.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-02-i-95-robeson-repaving.aspx)

Quote
"The Lane Construction Corporation was recently awarded the contract with the lowest bid, $236,457,869."

I know about them. They operate just north of Ridgeland, South Carolina.  You can see them from either I-95 or Old US 17.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Lane_Construction_on_Old_US_17%2C_SC.jpg/640px-Lane_Construction_on_Old_US_17%2C_SC.jpg)


So that means if I go up to NYC in 2022, I'll either have to A)Take Auto Train, B)Put up with traffic jams from Dillon County to Lumberton, or C)Take US 501 at South of the Border to NC 710, until I reach I-74 and take that back to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 15, 2021, 07:05:26 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 15, 2021, 10:36:18 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 15, 2021, 11:23:04 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 15, 2021, 11:50:54 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Good.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 15, 2021, 12:04:49 PM
The new edition of the NC Scenic Byways guide is now available.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-15-scenic-byways-guidebook-available.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-15-scenic-byways-guidebook-available.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on November 15, 2021, 04:43:15 PM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Good.

Work isn’t supposed to start until January, and I’m pretty sure all of the work involving lane closures will take place at night.

Even if it doesn’t, the SC 38 and US 1 route towards Hamlet and Raleigh is a decent one, with the only real holdup being in the Aberdeen/Southern Pines area, which is a good area for a pit stop anyway.  Also one annoyingly poorly-timed traffic light just south of Sanford, but north of there it’s 70 MPH freeway to Raleigh.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 15, 2021, 09:08:54 PM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Good.

Work isn’t supposed to start until January, and I’m pretty sure all of the work involving lane closures will take place at night.

Even if it doesn’t, the SC 38 and US 1 route towards Hamlet and Raleigh is a decent one, with the only real holdup being in the Aberdeen/Southern Pines area, which is a good area for a pit stop anyway.  Also one annoyingly poorly-timed traffic light just south of Sanford, but north of there it’s 70 MPH freeway to Raleigh.
FTFY, was I-140 before FHWA shot it down.  :pan: :no: :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 15, 2021, 11:35:21 PM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Good.

Work isn’t supposed to start until January, and I’m pretty sure all of the work involving lane closures will take place at night.

Even if it doesn’t, the SC 38 and US 1 route towards Hamlet and Raleigh is a decent one, with the only real holdup being in the Aberdeen/Southern Pines area, which is a good area for a pit stop anyway.  Also one annoyingly poorly-timed traffic light just south of Sanford, but north of there it’s 70 MPH freeway to Raleigh.
FTFY, was I-140 before FHWA shot it down.  :pan: :no: :banghead:

Was never I-140, it was proposed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on November 16, 2021, 05:51:18 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Good.

Work isn’t supposed to start until January, and I’m pretty sure all of the work involving lane closures will take place at night.

Even if it doesn’t, the SC 38 and US 1 route towards Hamlet and Raleigh is a decent one, with the only real holdup being in the Aberdeen/Southern Pines area, which is a good area for a pit stop anyway.  Also one annoyingly poorly-timed traffic light just south of Sanford, but north of there it’s 70 MPH freeway to Raleigh.
FTFY, was I-140 before FHWA shot it down.  :pan: :no: :banghead:

Was never I-140, it was proposed.

And what exactly was fixed for me, other than bolding, italicizing, and underlining my exact words?  Regardless of whether or not US 1 from Sanford to Raleigh was ever slated to become an interstate, it’s still a 70 mph freeway at least as far as Apex where I think it drops to 65 or 60.

And besides, it needs to be a southern extension of I-87, and terminate in Camden, SC at I-20.  Would make a great reliever route for both I-95, and even I-85 for Atlanta-bound traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 16, 2021, 10:51:30 AM
I-587 is officially approved:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 16, 2021, 10:53:48 AM
I-587 is officially approved:

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-16-i-587-designation-approved.aspx
Posted in another thread...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=19189.425
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on November 16, 2021, 11:54:59 AM
With I-95 widening also getting underway in multiple swaths in North Carolina, you may want to consider SC 38 to US 74 Bus to NC 177 to US 1 to I-85 for traveling to NYC in 2022...
Im heading there this thanksgiving to SYR.

Should be fine on I-95 right now...I drove all of NC's I-95 NB last Monday in the middle of the afternoon and there were no construction delays...
Well, I'm leaving on Saturday, so there's no problem for me. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on November 19, 2021, 12:05:28 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on November 19, 2021, 12:16:57 PM
895 would probably be a better number for that route, don't want to use up all the x85s
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 12:40:19 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

Why Dunn? Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it make more sense to end it at I-295 somewhere near Spring Lake?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on November 19, 2021, 12:47:44 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

Why Dunn? Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it make more sense to end it at I-295 somewhere near Spring Lake?

Likely to keep clear of Fort Bragg. I also agree that I-895 seems more correct as it would be a north-south designation starting from I-95; but maybe that want to future extend it east onto I-40, so who knows.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 19, 2021, 12:48:04 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

Why Dunn? Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it make more sense to end it at I-295 somewhere near Spring Lake?
I got pictures of what it will look like.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on November 19, 2021, 12:56:23 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)
THANK YOU JESUS! Lets see if this does NOT get rejected by NIMBY's!  :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 02:22:57 PM
It's strongly suspected that Toyota will build a battery plant at the Greensboro-Randolph megasite, which so happens to be located along US-421. Makes me wonder if I-685(?) was included in the infrastructure bill for that very reason...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/toyota-eyes-panasonic-as-partner-in-north-carolina-battery-plant)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 19, 2021, 03:30:21 PM
When I saw the initial post about the US 421 corridor becoming an Interstate, I assumed it meant the portion of 421 between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem. Is a US 421 "Interstate" really needed between Greensboro and Dunn? If this corridor were made an Interstate, I think it should have a 2-digit number, such as 36 or 38.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 04:10:01 PM
Is a US 421 "Interstate" really needed between Greensboro and Dunn?

If Toyota confirms that they indeed will build a battery plant at the megasite I mentioned, then I'd say it played a huge role in luring them there. I wouldn't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between the state and Toyota. The timing of all this seems too perfect to be a coincidence, IMO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: mvak36 on November 19, 2021, 05:07:35 PM
How much of this corridor is already interstate grade? I didn't look too closely but the part from Greensboro to Sanford seems like it's closer to being done (if it isn't already) than the part from Sanford to Dunn.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 19, 2021, 06:26:22 PM
Another new NC interstate coming soon? The recently signed infrastructure bill includes high priority corridor designation for US 421 from I-85 to I-95 in Dunn, supporters of the corridor upgrade want this to become Future I-685:
https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/ (https://www.tarpo.org/2021/11/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-clears-the-way-for-future-i-685-interstate-designation-in-the-carolina-core/)

Why Dunn? Unless I'm missing something, wouldn't it make more sense to end it at I-295 somewhere near Spring Lake?

Likely to keep clear of Fort Bragg. I also agree that I-895 seems more correct as it would be a north-south designation starting from I-95; but maybe that want to future extend it east onto I-40, so who knows.
Why would they want to avoid Fort Bragg? It looks like the impetus for this is coming from the Greensboro area primarily and the Sanford area secondarily. When Fayetteville realizes what's going on, they're going to want the interstate to come there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 06:29:46 PM
How much of this corridor is already interstate grade? I didn't look too closely but the part from Greensboro to Sanford seems like it's closer to being done (if it isn't already) than the part from Sanford to Dunn.

Only the Sanford bypass meets interstate standards. The rest of it will need upgrades and, in some areas east of Sanford, new alignments.

The section between I-85 and Siler City is a freeway, but it has substandard shoulders. Given that it would be the easiest part to upgrade, NCDOT would probably start at I-85 and work their way down from there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 19, 2021, 06:36:58 PM
Greensboro to Siler City has at-grade intersections (0 traffic lights). (least expensive to upgrade to interstate standards)

From the end of the Siler City Bypass to the US 421 exit at Sanford, I counted around 15 to 20 at-grade intersections with believe it or not only 1 traffic light!  (medium expensive).

From Sanford to Dunn is where THE BIG BUCKS are needed:

Sanford to Lillington: currently just a 2 lane road

Lillington to Dunn: 4 lanes, but it's mostly 4 lanes with a center turn lane even in the rural sections, plus a new crossing of the Cape Fear River would have to be built, the current US 421 crossing at the Cape Fear River is just north of downtown Lillington.

Why not just bring the new interstate down to Fayetteville?  My guess is that Toyota wants an extremely rural freeway connection to get out to I-95, instead of having to deal with I-295 around Fayetteville, Ft Bragg and Spring Hill.

Plus, this highway will serve a growing Harnett County, many people are leaving Wake County for Harnett County because of rising home prices in Wake County.  It's rising everywhere, but it's double crazy the closer you get to Raleigh.

It would be nice if this interstate connects to Goldsboro and Greenville in the future.  It would be a nice bypass of the Raleigh metro area.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on November 19, 2021, 06:37:54 PM
4 at-grade intersections are between I-85 and Siler City (Correction)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 19, 2021, 06:40:55 PM
4 at-grade intersections are between I-85 and Siler City (Correction)

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Revive 755 on November 19, 2021, 10:59:26 PM
895 would probably be a better number for that route, don't want to use up all the x85s

Could multiplex it westward with I-85 and I-73 and make it I-640.  Maybe I-40S in the future  :spin:

When I saw the initial post about the US 421 corridor becoming an Interstate, I assumed it meant the portion of 421 between Wilkesboro and Winston-Salem. Is a US 421 "Interstate" really needed between Greensboro and Dunn? If this corridor were made an Interstate, I think it should have a 2-digit number, such as 36 or 38.

I don't know - for some reason to me tonight it doesn't seem like an important enough corridor for a 2di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 20, 2021, 09:09:50 AM
Some last minute diversions to our Forest City store had me drive through the Shelby bypass construction zone twice in the last 6 days.  The Bidwell machine was up on the nc 150 overpass, it appears that the nc 180/railroad overpass is complete, and since my last visit in the late spring, they got the reinforcing  rods installed for the nc 18 side barriers.  Seems they are making more effort to complete between nc 18 and 150 that nc 226 and 18 which still needs tons of grading.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on November 21, 2021, 08:39:47 AM
Some last minute diversions to our Forest City store had me drive through the Shelby bypass construction zone twice in the last 6 days.  The Bidwell machine was up on the nc 150 overpass, it appears that the nc 180/railroad overpass is complete, and since my last visit in the late spring, they got the reinforcing  rods installed for the nc 18 side barriers.  Seems they are making more effort to complete between nc 18 and 150 that nc 226 and 18 which still needs tons of grading.

Am I correct that the NC 180 relocation is not open yet?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on November 21, 2021, 12:23:52 PM
Some last minute diversions to our Forest City store had me drive through the Shelby bypass construction zone twice in the last 6 days.  The Bidwell machine was up on the nc 150 overpass, it appears that the nc 180/railroad overpass is complete, and since my last visit in the late spring, they got the reinforcing  rods installed for the nc 18 side barriers.  Seems they are making more effort to complete between nc 18 and 150 that nc 226 and 18 which still needs tons of grading.

I wonder what the route designations will look like once the bypass is done. Currently Dixon Blvd is signed as US 74 Bypass, and a business route goes through downtown. I would imagine current bus. route is deleted, and Dixon becomes the bus. route, with the new bypass being mainline 74. But with this being NC, who knows  :confused:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on November 21, 2021, 07:45:32 PM
Some last minute diversions to our Forest City store had me drive through the Shelby bypass construction zone twice in the last 6 days.  The Bidwell machine was up on the nc 150 overpass, it appears that the nc 180/railroad overpass is complete, and since my last visit in the late spring, they got the reinforcing  rods installed for the nc 18 side barriers.  Seems they are making more effort to complete between nc 18 and 150 that nc 226 and 18 which still needs tons of grading.

Am I correct that the NC 180 relocation is not open yet?

Correct, still not open.  In fact, little to no work west of 150 since my last trip.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 22, 2021, 06:24:56 PM
895 would probably be a better number for that route, don't want to use up all the x85s
How about an odd first digit? I-185 or I-195. Doesn't an even first digit mean the route returns to the parent?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on November 22, 2021, 07:45:31 PM
895 would probably be a better number for that route, don't want to use up all the x85s
How about an odd first digit? I-185 or I-195. Doesn't an even first digit mean the route returns to the parent?

That's technically not what they wrote when they (AASHTO or whoever) came up with the numbering rules, but it is how some states have interpreted it. But they really meant, even first digit means both ends of the route are at other Interstates. E.g. I-275 in Tennessee
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 22, 2021, 07:47:34 PM
895 would probably be a better number for that route, don't want to use up all the x85s
How about an odd first digit? I-185 or I-195. Doesn't an even first digit mean the route returns to the parent?
Yes and no.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on November 23, 2021, 10:05:55 AM
Even within NC, we have precedent of an even 3di not meeting its parent at both ends:  I-285.

Plenty of precedent elsewhere, too.  I-295 VA, both I-291's, I-280 NJ, I-271 OH amongst some off the top of my head...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 23, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
News: https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-22-chocowinity-bridge-closure.aspx

Quote
CHOCOWINITY — A section of road on U.S. 17 Business in Beaufort County is set to be closed for more than a year while a new bridge is built.

The bridge over Norfolk Southern Railroad in Chocowinity, not far from Whichards Beach Road, will close Nov. 29 to traffic. Construction on the new, modern structure is set to last through the spring of 2023.

During the closure, traffic will be detoured to U.S. 17 and U.S. 264. A temporary signal will be installed during this time at the southbound ramp to U.S. 17 Business from U.S. 264. Access to businesses on U.S. 17 Business will still be open.

The N.C. Department of Transportation urges drivers to take the detour into account when planning their commute and use caution when traveling near the construction site.

Can the temporary signal at the southbound ramps become permanent even when the replacement is finished? It's kind of hard seeing oncoming westbound 264 traffic without a signal! I feel like you'll be waiting there for like 5 minutes. This is just my opinion.

This view looks obstructed. (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5631173,-77.0738613,3a,75y,189.69h,86.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1siC6he2XAqJkAp4-qSH64XA!2e0!5s20210601T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

I know this closure will double the traffic on the US-17 bypass bridge... The current AADT on the bypass is 10,500 as of 2019. It will double to 24,500 when the closure begins. It can handle it for sure. I know after they finish with that, they will start to replace the Pamlico river bridge with a fixed span I assume. These are just my ideas.

I also feel like they've could have added a signal (or even a loop) here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.5064221,-77.0889388,271m/data=!3m1!1e3) too during the closure because it will be a nightmare because you will see more than 10,000 vehicles turn left... And the through traffic coming from westbound NC 33 is 9,800...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 23, 2021, 01:47:49 PM
Delays are expected on I-40 in the Pigeon River Gorge.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-23-holiday-travel-western-i-40-gorge.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-11-23-holiday-travel-western-i-40-gorge.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 26, 2021, 06:25:51 PM
New 2021 orthoimagery has been posted for the central counties!

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2c8a9b366c4841f1be2b464347d04a2b
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 26, 2021, 09:30:21 PM
Question for the I-95 Highway 4 Gold Rock Interchange Improvements:

When looking at the signage plans, since when did NCDOT decide to sign the NC 48 street signs "Richmond/Smithfield" rather than "Richmond/Benson"?

If you scroll to page 22 in this  (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/NASH_47617.3.1_B-5980ETC_C204350/B-5980/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)document, you can see what I'm talking about. I find it weird to see the street mounted signs and the overhead signs have two different control cities. The I-95 southbound sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.062756,-77.81964,3a,75y,307.64h,92.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4XxyhSq5pyCwp1sW_PHI3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) did say "Smithfield" and was later changed to Benson.

This is what I don't like about this project. Like how were they thinking... I feel like this will confuse people when seeing two different control cities going in the same direction.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's what I circled - http://prntscr.com/20xhxw4
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on November 27, 2021, 07:11:00 PM
This project has been updated with some maps. I will break down the list and tell you guys what will be done.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Pages/default.aspx

A virtual public meeting is scheduled for December 9th, 2021.

This is a four-phase project.

Construction is expected to break ground for Segment A (​I-540 to Durant Road/Perry Creek Road​) in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-i-540%20Area-map-1.pdf - This map shows that a flyover ramp will be constructed from Southbound US-1 to Eastbound I-540 and other plans call for widening the westbound bridges to eliminate the quick lane drop.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-gresham-lake-rd-option-1-i-540-to-durant-area-map-2.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-gresham-lake-road-%20option-2-map-2.pdf - when comparing this to Option 1, it adds an overpass for the future Triangle Town Center Blvd extension.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-gresham-Lake-rd-option%203-map-2.pdf - This would extend it on the other end.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-gresham-lake-rd-option-4-map-2.pdf - And this would built it all it once :D - my favorite alternative.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-durant-road-perry-creek-rd-area-map-3.pdf - A diverging diamond interchange will be built at Durant Road and Perry Creek Road.
__________________________________________________________

Segments B and C projects are expected to begin construction in October 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-burlington-mills-option-A-map-4A.pdf - This is a diamond interchange which will be constructed at Burlington Mills Road.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-burlington-mills-option-B-map-4B.pdf - This is a partial cloverleaf (or ParClo B2) and with this alternative, it will take out a neighborhood. I suggest this would be the most favorable due to fewer business impacts.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-between-burlington-mills-and-main-st-map-5.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-falls-of-neuse-and-south-main-street-map-6.pdf - This will add a diverging diamond interchange at Falls of Neuse Road and South Main Street with slight impacts to the parking lot at Rex Healthcare of Wakefield. That being said, there might be some opposition to this design.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-nc-98-bypass-map-7.pdf

____________________________________________________

Segment D is currently unfunded, with construction possibly beginning beyond 2030.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-nc-98-business-map-8.pdf - This will do some tweaking to the existing diamond interchange, and will add a loop from northbound US-1 to westbound NC-98.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-stadium-drive-jenkins-road-map-9.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-harris-road-purnell-road-option%201-map-10A.pdf - this option would provide bigger exit ramps from northbound US-1.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-harris-road-purnell-road-option-2-map-10A.pdf This option would provide a four-junction roundabout, but with smaller ramps.

____________________________________

These are plans to extend roads for service roads.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-service-road-stroller-ridge-extension.pdf

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Documents/capital-blvd-north-upgrade-service-road-wadford-bridge-extension.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 30, 2021, 01:57:08 PM
Question for the I-95 Highway 4 Gold Rock Interchange Improvements:

When looking at the signage plans, since when did NCDOT decide to sign the NC 48 street signs "Richmond/Smithfield" rather than "Richmond/Benson"?

If you scroll to page 22 in this  (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/06-15-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/NASH_47617.3.1_B-5980ETC_C204350/B-5980/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)document, you can see what I'm talking about. I find it weird to see the street mounted signs and the overhead signs have two different control cities. The I-95 southbound sign here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.062756,-77.81964,3a,75y,307.64h,92.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4XxyhSq5pyCwp1sW_PHI3w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) did say "Smithfield" and was later changed to Benson.

This is what I don't like about this project. Like how were they thinking... I feel like this will confuse people when seeing two different control cities going in the same direction.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's what I circled - http://prntscr.com/20xhxw4
Face it, there are many towns on the East Coast and people would like to have many more mentioned on guidance signs. I have no problem with multiple cities bing listed and not using the same single control city over and over for interstate signs It's that red, white and blue shield that's most important and the control city is to inidicate direction more than anything else.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 02, 2021, 09:26:39 AM
The Reason Foundation (whatever that is) has released its annual report on the state of American highway systems. North Carolina ranks 5th in overall cost effectiveness and condition, up for 14th last year. From the report:

"North Carolina’s best rankings are in rural arterial pavement condition (8th), urban Interstate pavement condition (10th) and urban arterial pavement condition (10th).

"North Carolina’s worst rankings are in structurally deficient bridges (39th), traffic congestion (29th), and overall fatality rate (29th).'

BTW, #1 in the ranking is North Dakota and #50 is New Jersey.

https://reason.org/policy-study/26th-annual-highway-report/north-carolina/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 02, 2021, 09:47:08 AM
The Reason Foundation (whatever that is) has released its annual report on the state of American highway systems. North Carolina ranks 5th in overall cost effectiveness and condition, up for 14th last year. From the report:

"North Carolina’s best rankings are in rural arterial pavement condition (8th), urban Interstate pavement condition (10th) and urban arterial pavement condition (10th).

"North Carolina’s worst rankings are in structurally deficient bridges (39th), traffic congestion (29th), and overall fatality rate (29th).'

BTW, #1 in the ranking is North Dakota and #50 is New Jersey.

https://reason.org/policy-study/26th-annual-highway-report/north-carolina/

It ranks Virginia at #2 and its neighbor Maryland at #38. Yikes!!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: webny99 on December 02, 2021, 12:13:52 PM
I guess this is as good a spot as any to post this... future I-840 construction visible from Church St (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.140173,-79.7900835,3a,74.3y,273.14h,73.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZA020lMQ__LA7l4DBR5rvQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZA020lMQ__LA7l4DBR5rvQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D274.82434%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), Yanceyville St (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1466335,-79.7762426,3a,41.1y,41.3h,85.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTCLe0QYCkfhOI6iE9M-aCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) (where I understand there will be an interchange), Lees Chapel Rd (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1502728,-79.7536927,3a,75y,6.26h,85.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sIjSxb4t1r5pRbfDNMF90VA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1), and Summit Ave (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1466839,-79.7424879,3a,90y,221.2h,80.08t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbHvRizO_7nvJGw6V19oTtA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) in June/July 2021 Street View. Construction can also be seen from either end of existing I-840 here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1394527,-79.7976451,3a,75y,181.52h,84.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA-g3dMLQQ0HGFZzjg_awUQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1436534,-79.7361634,3a,26.9y,286.53h,85.94t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sOObnOSA4G6XE2xgLxfE8hg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DOObnOSA4G6XE2xgLxfE8hg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D40.41896%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1).

(In case you hadn't noticed, being from NY, I'm starved for big new construction projects!  :))
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 02, 2021, 12:28:04 PM
Yanceyville St (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1466335,-79.7762426,3a,41.1y,41.3h,85.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTCLe0QYCkfhOI6iE9M-aCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) (where I understand there will be an interchange),

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/greensboro-urban-loop/northern-loopc/Documents/Section%204.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: webny99 on December 02, 2021, 12:38:27 PM
Yanceyville St (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1466335,-79.7762426,3a,41.1y,41.3h,85.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTCLe0QYCkfhOI6iE9M-aCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1) (where I understand there will be an interchange),

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/greensboro-urban-loop/northern-loopc/Documents/Section%204.pdf

That's interesting, thanks!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on December 02, 2021, 01:29:25 PM
There will be only 1 interchange between US 29 and Elm Street and that is Yanceyville Street.  As for completion date for the Greensboro Urban Loop, it could be anywhere from December 2022 to July 2023. 

Based on the data I have looked at (NCDOT Construction Progress Report) it seems like the Winston Salem Beltway segment from US 421 to US 52 (Northeast) will be done before the Greensboro loop.  It looks like the completion date is around October 2022.  The original goal for the WS Beltway was the end of 2022 so that is moving ahead of schedule.

There was some talk last year that the Greensboro loop could be finished by the end of this year but that is no longer the case.  Probably due to railroad and covid issues.  Plus, the weather in Greensboro was unseasonably cold and wet in early 2021. The City Government and NCDOT are trying to open the road by next Christmas of 2022, but nothing is set in stone right now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 02, 2021, 04:00:19 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 02, 2021, 04:35:41 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 02, 2021, 04:45:15 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes another I-x85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 02, 2021, 05:04:12 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes another I-x85.

Of course :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 03, 2021, 06:13:04 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes another I-x85.
I would. It could only be an I-x85 if US 1 were upgraded all the way to Henderson. I suppose that not's impossible but it seems quite unlikely to me.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 04, 2021, 06:15:05 PM
Question for Winston-Salem folks: what's the current signage along the Salem Parkway? Have the BR 40 signs been removed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 04, 2021, 06:36:24 PM
Question for Winston-Salem folks: what's the current signage along the Salem Parkway? Have the BR 40 signs been removed?

I did not see any along US 421 when I drove it last year on November 13th.  The only one I saw was this one on US 158 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.115442,-80.1869314,3a,75y,242.49h,87.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJCYJjyI2Dp6yfd7m7s27g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 04, 2021, 08:35:28 PM
Question for Winston-Salem folks: what's the current signage along the Salem Parkway? Have the BR 40 signs been removed?

I did not see any along US 421 when I drove it last year on November 13th.  The only one I saw was this one on US 158 (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.115442,-80.1869314,3a,75y,242.49h,87.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sAJCYJjyI2Dp6yfd7m7s27g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656).

Looks like it based on Street View from this year. The ones referenced above are gone (https://goo.gl/maps/Y28yMTYgS5jKmKWU9). There could still be a rogue one out there, but it's unlikely at this point.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 05, 2021, 05:46:12 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I would rather a separate parallel road be built to complement US1. I do not like what they did to Independence Blvd in Charlotte. It killed the businesses along the road and the whole thoroughfare didn't seem livelty.

US1 would be made much uglier with a freeway conversion and with access roads added.

The first thing they should do is add another lane in each direction near Franklin County.

The signal on US1 don't use sensors evidently asnd the phases are too slow.

Not an easy solution, but eliminating protected lefts through the use of Michigan lefts or some Jersey Jughandles would help a lot.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 05, 2021, 10:11:23 PM
 :D
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes another I-x85.
I would. It could only be an I-x85 if US 1 were upgraded all the way to Henderson. I suppose that not's impossible but it seems quite unlikely to me.
Perhaps then they could make it an I-40 spur to Wake Forest, say I-740?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 06, 2021, 11:21:09 AM
As part of the I-26 widening project, Glenn Bridge Road at I-26, as well as it's intersection with New Rockwood Road, will be closed this weekend.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-03-glenn-bridge-road-buncombe.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-03-glenn-bridge-road-buncombe.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 06, 2021, 03:17:22 PM
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I would rather a separate parallel road be built to complement US1. I do not like what they did to Independence Blvd in Charlotte. It killed the businesses along the road and the whole thoroughfare didn't seem livelty.

US1 would be made much uglier with a freeway conversion and with access roads added.

The first thing they should do is add another lane in each direction near Franklin County.

The signal on US1 don't use sensors evidently asnd the phases are too slow.

Not an easy solution, but eliminating protected lefts through the use of Michigan lefts or some Jersey Jughandles would help a lot.

Normally a parallel road would be ideal but in this case where would they put it? It's already pretty developed around there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 06, 2021, 05:29:12 PM
:D
NCDOT will hold a virtual meeting on December 9 to discuss upgrading US-1 to a freeway between I-540 and Purnell/Harris Road in Wake Forest. Public comments will be accepted through January 7.

The contract for the first part of the upgrade, from I-540 to Durant/Perry Creek Road, is scheduled to be awarded in October 2024.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-02-capital-blvd-north-upgrade-public-meeting.aspx)

THIS. I usually use this route to reach Raleigh from Richmond (mostly because I usually stop in the Henderson area) so I know the stretch south of Wake Forest is ass. It's going to take a lot of work but it's definitely going to be worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually becomes another I-x85.
I would. It could only be an I-x85 if US 1 were upgraded all the way to Henderson. I suppose that not's impossible but it seems quite unlikely to me.
Perhaps then they could make it an I-40 spur to Wake Forest, say I-740?
From I-440? Doubtful. Capital Blvd from I-440 to I-540 would be most likely too expensive to upgrade and with massive relocations. Perhaps it will get some improvements (like converting some busy intersections into interchanges which is what Independence Blvd near Charlotte is), but not a full freeway. If anything It will go to I-540 and would most likely be I-985 if anything. Or are you referring to I-740 branching off of I-540?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 06, 2021, 06:02:03 PM
Upgrading US 1 to a freeway is not a new idea; it's been in the works at least since 2006. It was selected over options that involved improvements to the existing road to help relieve congestion. I'm not hearing any significant opposition, so count on it happening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 06, 2021, 09:30:51 PM
^ I wouldn't fully count on it happening.  There may be minimal opposition, but it won't be cheap and NCDOT has taken a number of financial hits over the past decade.  The Legislature doesn't seem too keen on remedying that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 06, 2021, 09:57:17 PM
Upgrading US 1 to a freeway is not a new idea; it's been in the works at least since 2006. It was selected over options that involved improvements to the existing road to help relieve congestion. I'm not hearing any significant opposition, so count on it happening.


US 1 between I-540 and I-85 doesn't need to be a freeway. The road is fine as it is.. there are other projects that are needed in NC....SMH.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2021, 09:59:02 PM
US 1 between I-540 and I-85 doesn't need to be a freeway. The road is fine as it is.. there are other projects that are needed in NC....SMH.
The portion currently planned to be upgraded certainly needs to be upgraded... north of there is debatable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 06, 2021, 10:33:19 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 07, 2021, 08:02:28 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
I-885, if we can finally finish it, will provide a direct link to Richmond via I-85 for the west half of the Triangle area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 07, 2021, 08:16:25 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
I-885, if we can finally finish it, will provide a direct link to Richmond via I-85 for the west half of the Triangle area.

I think he's referring to reaching I-85 from northern Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 07, 2021, 08:54:29 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
I-885, if we can finally finish it, will provide a direct link to Richmond via I-85 for the west half of the Triangle area.

I think he's referring to reaching I-85 from northern Raleigh.
For the west side of Raleigh, Cary, Apex, Morrisville, with I-885 complete I-85 will be as easy to reach as US 1 and much easier to reach than I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 07, 2021, 11:46:46 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
I-885, if we can finally finish it, will provide a direct link to Richmond via I-85 for the west half of the Triangle area.

I think he's referring to reaching I-85 from northern Raleigh.

You are correct I-885 will be a vastly improved second option for trips originating in Raleigh bound for the northeast unless you’re in the Briar Creek area. Don’t get me wrong, I-885 is much needed but true travel savings between the northeast and Raleigh only comes in the form of a US 1 conversation to freeway (it’s only 30 miles give or take). 

Fixed quote. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 08, 2021, 06:03:22 PM
I'm not aware of any plans to widen I-85 northeast of Durham, but I suspect I-885 will direct so much more traffic in that direction that there will be a need to widen I-85 at least from I-885 to the US 15 exit north of Falls Lake.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on December 08, 2021, 06:26:33 PM
I'm not aware of any plans to widen I-85 northeast of Durham, but I suspect I-885 will direct so much more traffic in that direction that there will be a need to widen I-85 at least from I-885 to the US 15 exit north of Falls Lake.

I have hit I-85 north around the future I-885 interchange a few times recently around afternoon rush hour when heading from Charlotte to Hampton Roads.  It does seem to back up as the lanes drop beyond that interchange.  It probably does need to be widened right now to US 15 at the very least.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 08, 2021, 08:10:54 PM
US 1 between I-540 and I-85 doesn't need to be a freeway. The road is fine as it is.. there are other projects that are needed in NC....SMH.
The portion currently planned to be upgraded certainly needs to be upgraded... north of there is debatable.

Sorry, I disagree. There are more desirable projects out there that has been sitting for years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on December 09, 2021, 01:54:14 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on December 09, 2021, 03:26:48 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.

Not sure there's four corners on the segment.  (So many on here have no idea what we're talking about!)

I'd offer some more comments, but this Duke grad will refrain.  :rolleyes:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 09, 2021, 04:50:29 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.

Not sure there's four corners on the segment.  (So many on here have no idea what we're talking about!)

I'd offer some more comments, but this Duke grad will refrain.  :rolleyes:

Ouch!  The Triangle has now officially become "The Four Corners".  But H. B. was clairvoyant:  I-40 was down to 10MPH on the entire Roy Williams Freeway this morning (and presumably the Dean Smith Freeway as well, but I got off in Chapel Hill to bypass the whole mess).  One of the local radio traffic "forecasters" calls this "slugisity".
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 09, 2021, 11:25:09 PM
I-95 in Rocky Mount has the Nov 2021 imagery:

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9692113,-77.8820355,3a,89.5y,174.46h,82.7t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1slflXA3zTLKHlOuh9KoiNHg!2e0!5s20211101T000000!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0649399,-77.8217535,3a,75y,187.4h,88.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJR7cmutP4oLK_wzOKVo97w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 - looks so bare when seeing them cut all the trees down...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on December 10, 2021, 12:00:06 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.

Not sure there's four corners on the segment.  (So many on here have no idea what we're talking about!)

I'd offer some more comments, but this Duke grad will refrain.  :rolleyes:

Dean Smith is probably the person most responsible for college basketball adopting a shot clock.

Believe it or not, one of the most exciting high school basketball games I ever saw ended up with a final score of 18-16. It was my senior year of high school and our team was playing the high school from a neighboring county. They were overmatched so their game plan was to take the air out of the ball if they got the lead. Once they did get the lead, they did just that and went into the four corners. I forget what happened to give my school the ball and the opportunity to tie the game and then take the lead, but the crowd was really into it. They were cheering and clapping and stomping the bleacher floors with their feet. It was raucous.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on December 10, 2021, 12:05:10 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.

Not sure there's four corners on the segment.  (So many on here have no idea what we're talking about!)

I'd offer some more comments, but this Duke grad will refrain.  :rolleyes:

So when a section of highway is named for Coach K, anyone displaying some type of dook logo will be allowed to do anything while visitors will be heavily penalized for minor infractions?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on December 10, 2021, 03:55:06 PM
News item: "Dean Smith, Roy Williams To Be Honored Along Stretches of I-40"

Comment: The section named for Smith will be prone to stalls and slowdowns.

Not sure there's four corners on the segment.  (So many on here have no idea what we're talking about!)

I'd offer some more comments, but this Duke grad will refrain.  :rolleyes:

So when a section of highway is named for Coach K, anyone displaying some type of dook logo will be allowed to do anything while visitors will be heavily penalized for minor infractions?

No, the least little breeze, and all the signs will blow over.  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 10, 2021, 05:24:38 PM
Name Toll 540 after Coach K so that in perpetuity charges can be taken from visitors...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 10, 2021, 09:47:04 PM
A US 1 Freeway providing a direct connection from Raleigh to points northeast makes sense. This route if converted to a freeway would shave at least 30 minutes to Richmond. Think about the conjestion relief I-95 would receive.
I-885, if we can finally finish it, will provide a direct link to Richmond via I-85 for the west half of the Triangle area.

I think he's referring to reaching I-85 from northern Raleigh.

You are correct I-885 will be a vastly improved second option for trips originating in Raleigh bound for the northeast unless you’re in the Briar Creek area. Don’t get me wrong, I-885 is much needed but true travel savings between the northeast and Raleigh only comes in the form of a US 1 conversation to freeway (it’s only 30 miles give or take). 

Fixed quote. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67

I guarantee you that NC isn't ever going to prioritize easier travel out of the state.

If they do anything ln US1with NC gas tax revenue it will be for thre benefit of NC residents living North of Raleigh.

Remember North Carolina is so full of itself that there is little reason to ever venture outside the state's borders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on December 10, 2021, 10:34:18 PM
I would agree with you if I-73, I-74, and I-785 didn’t exist. Also don’t forget about the state’s justification for I-495 (which has now been replaced by I-87). Outside of the High Point bypass, and the east side of Winston Salem’s northern beltway, those highways mostly benefit a small rural population base and out of state travel. An upgraded US 1 would improve safety along the corridor, significantly reduce travel times to and from the northeast, provide relief to a dangerous section of I-95 that may see a significant uptick in truck traffic if CCX is successful in catalyzing industrial growth, and improve job access to the economically distressed counties to the north. Personally I expect Granville County will see an influx in growth that will cause significant congestion on I-85 as a result of the reduced commute times after I-885 opens. With all of that said, we will likely never see this happen because the growth spilling in into Franklin County will make the future cost of this freeway conversion difficult without converting the highway to a toll facility. There are so many parallels between US 1 in the Raleigh area and US 74 in the Charlotte area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 14, 2021, 03:15:34 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen and make other improvements to NC-211 between NC-87 in Southport and NC-906. Work will begin early next year with completion expected in fall 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-14-nc-211-widening-southport.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-14-nc-211-widening-southport.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 14, 2021, 05:55:49 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen and make other improvements to NC-211 between NC-87 in Southport and NC-906. Work will begin early next year with completion expected in fall 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-14-nc-211-widening-southport.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-14-nc-211-widening-southport.aspx)
The interchange of NC 211 and NC 133 has been needed for about 20 years, so this is good news even if long delayed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: KCRoadFan on December 15, 2021, 01:51:08 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 15, 2021, 02:14:54 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely-east west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

I-40 was originally supposed to end at I-85 in Greensboro.  (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-040/#history)

Quote
The original plan for Interstate 40 concluded the route east at I-85 in central Greensboro. This changed in 1968, with a proposed extension of I-40 eastward to Interstate 95. However there was some difficulty in determining which route I-40 would ultimately take. The state first petitioned for the Interstate 40 freeway to follow U.S. 70 from Raleigh-Durham east to Morehead City in 1962. Although that plan was rejected, U.S. 70 eventually was upgraded to freeway and expressway standards from 2000 onward, and ultimately became a part of the Interstate 42 corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 15, 2021, 02:22:28 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely-east west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

I-40 was originally supposed to end at I-85 in Greensboro.  (https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-040/#history)

Quote
The original plan for Interstate 40 concluded the route east at I-85 in central Greensboro. This changed in 1968, with a proposed extension of I-40 eastward to Interstate 95. However there was some difficulty in determining which route I-40 would ultimately take. The state first petitioned for the Interstate 40 freeway to follow U.S. 70 from Raleigh-Durham east to Morehead City in 1962. Although that plan was rejected, U.S. 70 eventually was upgraded to freeway and expressway standards from 2000 onward, and ultimately became a part of the Interstate 42 corridor.
The growth of the Triangle definitely warranted an extension of I-40 so they did that, so it definitely makes sense of why they extended it east of Greensboro... And then after the Triangle's growth, they extended it to Wilmington. And then Wilmington started booming... Taking it to Morehead City as opposed to Wilmington would have definitely been a lot more work that needed to be done.

But now I-42 is being built, which is part of the original I-40 proposal!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 15, 2021, 07:20:21 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely-east west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?
Because I-85 was the only interstate there for a long time… I-40 was only extended over in the 1980s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on December 15, 2021, 08:57:40 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?
For years, I-40 East ended in Greensboro and there was a gap from there to Chapel Hill. When I-40 was finally connected to I-85 near Hillsborough, NCDOT added the I-40 shields but did not renumber the exits.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on December 15, 2021, 11:09:17 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

I'm not quite old enough to be there at the time, but I believe it's because I-85 was the older road.  So, I believe the logic was not to change the exit numbers once I-40 was extended in Orange County to finally connect to the segment in Research Triangle/Raleigh.  Before the extension in 1987, I-40 essentially ended at I-85 in Greensboro (even if it was co-signed before that.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 15, 2021, 12:23:39 PM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

I'm not quite old enough to be there at the time, but I believe it's because I-85 was the older road.  So, I believe the logic was not to change the exit numbers once I-40 was extended in Orange County to finally connect to the segment in Research Triangle/Raleigh.  Before the extension in 1987, I-40 essentially ended at I-85 in Greensboro (even if it was co-signed before that.)

And it ended at Raleigh's I-440 Beltline!. I think that's why Wade Ave looks like an interstate, because before I-40 was built South of Downtown Raleigh it came to the Beltline/ Cameron Village location as its terminus.

I drove the airport shuttle for the North Raleigh Hilton in college, and I-40 was only 3 lanes each direction from Raleigh to RTP.  I remember picking up some middle aged woman from Madison Wisconsin who was intimidated by how "big" the Triangle was just based on the 3 lane I-40 traffic volume was.

No one ever talks about it but that stretch needs a concrete median barrier
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 15, 2021, 12:50:23 PM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

By the way, I-40 was not the dominant freeway at the east end of the multiplex between Greensboro and Efland until recently.  Even today, the AADT on I-40 east of Efland is less than 15% higher than I-85 east of Efland.  I-40 doesn't turn into the dominant route until after picking up rush hour traffic off of NC-86 from the northern part of Chapel Hill.

There's also the question about which side of the split picks up the RTP traffic.  When I worked in The Park about 15 years ago, I would take I-85 to work and I-40 back home (even though both of those routing carried more traffic) simply because the traffic was more predictable and less chaotic.  Right now, most of the RTP traffic is going down the I-40 side of the split but that wasn't the case before the Durham East End Bypass project (I-885) started.  The extra congestion due to construction on the Durham Freeway has forced most of the RTP traffic over onto I-40.  I suspect that most of the RTP traffic will not return to I-85 and the Durham Freeway, and even if it does, it will return to the I-40 side once the widening project (which st-st-st-still hasn't started) is complete.

If we take a lunar view of both I-40 and I-85, the traffic between Raleigh and Wilmington is about the same as it is on I-85 approaching the Virginia state line.  But the traffic between Greensboro and Charlotte is much heavier than the traffic between Winston-Salem and Statesville (as well as much heavier than I-95 in its entirety).  So from NCDOT's perspective, I-85 is still the dominant route in the entire state.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 15, 2021, 05:44:24 PM
I'm not quite old enough to be there at the time, but I believe it's because I-85 was the older road.  So, I believe the logic was not to change the exit numbers once I-40 was extended in Orange County to finally connect to the segment in Research Triangle/Raleigh.  Before the extension in 1987, I-40 essentially ended at I-85 in Greensboro (even if it was co-signed before that.)

And it ended at Raleigh's I-440 Beltline!. I think that's why Wade Ave looks like an interstate, because before I-40 was built South of Downtown Raleigh it came to the Beltline/ Cameron Village location as its terminus.

I drove the airport shuttle for the North Raleigh Hilton in college, and I-40 was only 3 lanes each direction from Raleigh to RTP.  I remember picking up some middle aged woman from Madison Wisconsin who was intimidated by how "big" the Triangle was just based on the 3 lane I-40 traffic volume was.

No one ever talks about it but that stretch needs a concrete median barrier
I moved to the Triangle in 1987; at that time Wade Avenue outside the Beltline was commonly called "I-40" and for years an I-40 shield  could be seen on Wade Avenue just west of what is now I-440.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 15, 2021, 10:15:20 PM
And it ended at Raleigh's I-440 Beltline!. I think that's why Wade Ave looks like an interstate, because before I-40 was built South of Downtown Raleigh it came to the Beltline/ Cameron Village location as its terminus.

I drove the airport shuttle for the North Raleigh Hilton in college, and I-40 was only 3 lanes each direction from Raleigh to RTP.  I remember picking up some middle aged woman from Madison Wisconsin who was intimidated by how "big" the Triangle was just based on the 3 lane I-40 traffic volume was.

No one ever talks about it but that stretch needs a concrete median barrier

^ This. I figured one would go in after that truck crossed over and resulted in a fiery, fatal wreck in 2007, but oh well.

https://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1643560/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 15, 2021, 10:20:21 PM
And it ended at Raleigh's I-440 Beltline!. I think that's why Wade Ave looks like an interstate, because before I-40 was built South of Downtown Raleigh it came to the Beltline/ Cameron Village location as its terminus.

I drove the airport shuttle for the North Raleigh Hilton in college, and I-40 was only 3 lanes each direction from Raleigh to RTP.  I remember picking up some middle aged woman from Madison Wisconsin who was intimidated by how "big" the Triangle was just based on the 3 lane I-40 traffic volume was.

No one ever talks about it but that stretch needs a concrete median barrier

^ This. I figured one would go in after that truck crossed over and resulted in a fiery, fatal wreck in 2007, but oh well.

https://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1643560/
When the express lanes come, it will all change I'm sure. Definitely a risky drive through without one and yet it's one of the busiest highways in the state.

I-40 between NC 147 and Wade Avenue, the interchanges currently being rebuilt will accommodate 12 through lanes so it would be 8 GP lanes and 4 managed lanes or 10 GP lanes and 2 managed lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 15, 2021, 11:00:05 PM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?
If we take a lunar view of both I-40 and I-85, the traffic between Raleigh and Wilmington is about the same as it is on I-85 approaching the Virginia state line.  But the traffic between Greensboro and Charlotte is much heavier than the traffic between Winston-Salem and Statesville (as well as much heavier than I-95 in its entirety).  So from NCDOT's perspective, I-85 is still the dominant route in the entire state.
Which is why NCDOT focused on widening I-85 first.

I-40 was widened to 8 lanes between NC-147 and Wade Avenue sometime in 1989. Growth pushed for that to happen.

I-85 was widened from the I-285 split to the I-85 connector (in Charlotte) interchange in various segments.

The first one was done from China Grove to Salisbury which was roughly completed in 2001.

Second was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to the I-85 connector interchange which was completed in roughly 2004 or 2005 I think.

Third was from Salisbury to Spencer which was completed in 2007.

Fourth was from Spencer (over the Yadkin River) to the I-285 split (or I-85 business). Which was completed in 2013.

Fifth was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to NC-73 which was completed in 2014.

Sixth was from the NC 73 interchange to the Rowan County line which was completed in 2018.

And last but not least, was from the Rowan County line to China Grove which was completed in 2020 believe if I'm not mistaken.

There's still 3 more segments that need to be widened which is around Gastonia, to the South Carolina line, and then from I-40 to the Durham County line. After those are done, it will be a while before I-85 gets any more improvements now.

They turned attention onto widening the oldest sections of I-95 and the overpopulated areas of I-40 which urban sprawl caused to happen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 16, 2021, 08:11:08 AM
"and
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?
If we take a lunar view of both I-40 and I-85, the traffic between Raleigh and Wilmington is about the same as it is on I-85 approaching the Virginia state line.  But the traffic between Greensboro and Charlotte is much heavier than the traffic between Winston-Salem and Statesville (as well as much heavier than I-95 in its entirety).  So from NCDOT's perspective, I-85 is still the dominant route in the entire state.
Which is why NCDOT focused on widening I-85 first.

I-40 was widened to 8 lanes between NC-147 and Wade Avenue sometime in 1989. Growth pushed for that to happen.

I-85 was widened from the I-285 split to the I-85 connector (in Charlotte) interchange in various segments.

The first one was done from China Grove to Salisbury which was roughly completed in 2001.

Second was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to the I-85 connector interchange which was completed in roughly 2004 or 2005 I think.

Third was from Salisbury to Spencer which was completed in 2007.

Fourth was from Spencer (over the Yadkin River) to the I-285 split (or I-85 business). Which was completed in 2013.

Fifth was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to NC-73 which was completed in 2014.

Sixth was from the NC 73 interchange to the Rowan County line which was completed in 2018.

And last but not least, was from the Rowan County line to China Grove which was completed in 2020 believe if I'm not mistaken.

There's still 3 more segments that need to be widened which is around Gastonia, to the South Carolina line, and then from I-40 to the Durham County line. After those are done, it will be a while before I-85 gets any more improvements now.

They turned attention onto widening the oldest sections of I-95 and the overpopulated areas of I-40 which urban sprawl caused to happen.
the overpopulated areas of I-40 which urban sprawl caused to happen"

Sprawl will happen based on where developers acquire land and build homes.

It's unfortunate that they truly are defining the layout for metro areas with long-lasting effects.

I believe that loops contain sprawl and without them the sprawl merely follows whatever interstate  comes to town.

* * * * * * * *

For I-85, the section immediately South of Greensboro has always been 6 lanes as far back as 1991.

The I-85/40 duplex took 10 years to build and was hell. However building to the highest standards is wise. It's now over 25 years old and most of the  shoulder, overhead and blue gas/lodging/eats signs are the original ones and they look perfect after 25 years of exposure to the elements.

Those high standards are why it costs vineyards $60,000 to have NCDOT install a shoulder sign in each direction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on December 16, 2021, 09:22:13 AM
Here's a North Carolina road question I've always had: as for the I-40/I-85 multiplex between Greensboro and Durham, why does it use I-85's exit numbers instead of I-40's? Because that section runs largely east-west and I-40 is the default/dominant roadway at either end, that convention makes absolutely no sense. What was NCDOT's reasoning behind that state of affairs regarding the mile markers, if any?

I'm not quite old enough to be there at the time, but I believe it's because I-85 was the older road.  So, I believe the logic was not to change the exit numbers once I-40 was extended in Orange County to finally connect to the segment in Research Triangle/Raleigh.  Before the extension in 1987, I-40 essentially ended at I-85 in Greensboro (even if it was co-signed before that.)

And it ended at Raleigh's I-440 Beltline!. I think that's why Wade Ave looks like an interstate, because before I-40 was built South of Downtown Raleigh it came to the Beltline/ Cameron Village location as its terminus.

I drove the airport shuttle for the North Raleigh Hilton in college, and I-40 was only 3 lanes each direction from Raleigh to RTP.  I remember picking up some middle aged woman from Madison Wisconsin who was intimidated by how "big" the Triangle was just based on the 3 lane I-40 traffic volume was.

No one ever talks about it but that stretch needs a concrete median barrier

I am old enough to  remember "I-40" as a four-lane road.  The only official segment was between the Durham Freeway and Wade Avenue, although the "then" East-West Expressway (aka  I.L. "Buck" Dean Expressway; NC 147 came much later) in Durham, and Wade Ave in Raleigh were often erroneously called I-40.

It was widened to six lanes in 1989, IIRC, between those two points (I-40 was extended from Wade to what's now called I-440 near Rock Quarry Road circa 1982/83.)  Later, the section in Wake County was widened using a maintenance contract in the late '90s (don't remember the specific year.)  It was done outside the normal TIP project procedures.  The left lane is substandard, in that the pavement depth is not the same, and to squeeze it in, the two left lanes in each direction are 11' wide.  The metal guard rail was installed instead of a concrete median because the latter would have required drainage structures, and that didn't fit the budget of the quick widening.

The Durham segment from the airport to the Durham Freeway was widened a little bit later, and was done "properly," with full width lanes and a Jersey barrier.
 
The I-40 segments around Aviation Parkway and Airport Blvd. should have been brought up to standard in the projects that rebuilt (or are rebuilding) the interchanges, but that opportunity was missed.  Likewise, there's a project adding auxiliary lanes between Aviation and Harrison (I-5966), and the road should be brought up to full standards then.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2021, 10:02:20 AM
Which is why NCDOT focused on widening I-85 first.

I-40 was widened to 8 lanes between NC-147 and Wade Avenue sometime in 1989. Growth pushed for that to happen.

I-85 was widened from the I-285 split to the I-85 connector (in Charlotte) interchange in various segments.

The first one was done from China Grove to Salisbury which was roughly completed in 2001.

Second was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to the I-85 connector interchange which was completed in roughly 2004 or 2005 I think.

Third was from Salisbury to Spencer which was completed in 2007.

Fourth was from Spencer (over the Yadkin River) to the I-285 split (or I-85 business). Which was completed in 2013.

Fifth was from the Bruton Smith Blvd interchange to NC-73 which was completed in 2014.

Sixth was from the NC 73 interchange to the Rowan County line which was completed in 2018.

And last but not least, was from the Rowan County line to China Grove which was completed in 2020 believe if I'm not mistaken.

There's still 3 more segments that need to be widened which is around Gastonia, to the South Carolina line, and then from I-40 to the Durham County line. After those are done, it will be a while before I-85 gets any more improvements now.

They turned attention onto widening the oldest sections of I-95 and the overpopulated areas of I-40 which urban sprawl caused to happen.

Being a purist, many of these projects were not true "widening projects" even though additional lanes were added.  There is a difference between increasing surge throughput (peak vphpd) in rush hour versus widening due to travel demand.  Typically, the need for additional lanes to increase surge throughput is measured using "Level of Traffic Service" (A-B-C-D-F) grades. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on December 16, 2021, 03:36:40 PM
First time I ever traveled that route, which would have been sometime during or after 1967 when my dad bought his '67 Impala, I-40 ended at I-85 in Greensboro. Even before all the bypasses and reroutings, there was no advance warning that you were approaching the concurrency. Suddenly there was a lot of traffic merging in and signage indicating I-85 had joined, along with a bunch of US routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 16, 2021, 05:21:13 PM
First time I ever traveled that route, which would have been sometime during or after 1967 when my dad bought his '67 Impala, I-40 ended at I-85 in Greensboro. Even before all the bypasses and reroutings, there was no advance warning that you were approaching the concurrency. Suddenly there was a lot of traffic merging in and signage indicating I-85 had joined, along with a bunch of US routes.

Ahh, memories of the first adventure into Death Valley.  At least eastbound was the easy way into Death Valley, as the westbound lanes were much, much worse. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 17, 2021, 06:56:42 AM
I'd much rather see a long collector/distributor system between the Durham Freeway and Wade Ave. that separates through traffic and local traffic than express lanes. Kind of like I-495 near Alexandria or what's being built on I-95 southbound near Fredericksburg. Basically, if you're heading westbound to the airport, you'd exit around where Wade Ave. merges and take the c/d lanes to the exit(s) instead of being in the left lane and CROSSING ALL LANES OF TRAFFIC at the last second to exit. There are too many interchanges too close together through there on top of very high volumes that lead to some crazy merges and weaves and ultimately crashes and slowdowns. Seems like it would be more effective and less complicated than express lanes that would require a bunch of bridges and separate exits, but there's probably no escaping those.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 17, 2021, 03:00:37 PM
I hate to say it but a bridge is REALLY needed to go straight to Corolla. Especially from the ones that live in the Hampton Roads area without having to dump all traffic onto the Wright Memorial Bridges. That's my rant.

https://www.obxtoday.com/judge-finds-in-favor-of-ncdot-feds-on-lawsuit-attempting-to-stop-mid-currituck-bridge/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 18, 2021, 06:34:49 PM
Okay, I've got a couple of questions regarding I-95 in Northern North Carolina.

1)Is it just me, or is the segment between Exits 171 and 173 more picturesque, and exciting to drive than most rural segments of the interstate, especially going northbound?

2)Are the bridges crossing the Roanoke River entirely within Northampton County?


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on December 18, 2021, 06:39:01 PM
Okay, I've got a couple of questions regarding I-95 in Northern North Carolina.

1)Is it just me, or is the segment between Exits 171 and 173 more picturesque, and exciting to drive than most rural segments of the interstate, especially going northbound?

2)Are the bridges crossing the Roanoke River entirely within Northampton County?
Never driven northbound on that section of 95, but apparently the bridges are indeed entirely in Northampton County.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 18, 2021, 06:41:34 PM
Okay, I've got a couple of questions regarding I-95 in Northern North Carolina.

1)Is it just me, or is the segment between Exits 171 and 173 more picturesque, and exciting to drive than most rural segments of the interstate, especially going northbound?

2)Are the bridges crossing the Roanoke River entirely within Northampton County?

Answer to number 1 - not really, I mean it's nice and forested, but the Fayetteville Bypass is also a nice scenic drive too.

And number 2 is yes. Although a small portion is in Halifax county.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 18, 2021, 07:08:48 PM
I hate to say it but a bridge is REALLY needed to go straight to Corolla. Especially from the ones that live in the Hampton Roads area without having to dump all traffic onto the Wright Memorial Bridges. That's my rant.

https://www.obxtoday.com/judge-finds-in-favor-of-ncdot-feds-on-lawsuit-attempting-to-stop-mid-currituck-bridge/

The value brought to the region from the tourism industry each year must be considered to those opposing it.

The Southern Environmental Law Center cost the state tens of millions in added expense as they sued against the new Bonner Bridge. It should be tabulated and thrown in their face everytime they sue by default every project.

They state it's poorly thought out, so they should be tasked with identifying what's bad and suggest an improvement to a new bridge plan, not for substitutes elsewhere.

The traffic is so bad in the summer that it probably has already dented that area's bottom line each season.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on December 19, 2021, 07:34:07 AM
I hate to say it but a bridge is REALLY needed to go straight to Corolla. Especially from the ones that live in the Hampton Roads area without having to dump all traffic onto the Wright Memorial Bridges. That's my rant.

https://www.obxtoday.com/judge-finds-in-favor-of-ncdot-feds-on-lawsuit-attempting-to-stop-mid-currituck-bridge/

The value brought to the region from the tourism industry each year must be considered to those opposing it.

The Southern Environmental Law Center cost the state tens of millions in added expense as they sued against the new Bonner Bridge. It should be tabulated and thrown in their face everytime they sue by default every project.

They state it's poorly thought out, so they should be tasked with identifying what's bad and suggest an improvement to a new bridge plan, not for substitutes elsewhere.

The traffic is so bad in the summer that it probably has already dented that area's bottom line each season.

The old bonner bridge was narrow and sketchy. The next big hurricane could've taken it out. It was well past time for the replacement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2021, 12:30:35 PM
I was unable to clinch NC 97 yesterday because the Swift Creek Bridge is closed until July 2022. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-edgecombe-county-bridge-replacement.aspx)

Also I noticed that construction is ongoing on part of the US 158 widening around Garysburg. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx)  I am unable to see if the routings of US 158, NC 46, and NC 186 will be affected by this project.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 19, 2021, 01:21:42 PM
I was unable to clinch NC 97 yesterday because the Swift Creek Bridge is closed until July 2022. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-edgecombe-county-bridge-replacement.aspx)

Also I noticed that construction is ongoing on part of the US 158 widening around Garysburg. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx)  I am unable to see if the routings of US 158, NC 46, and NC 186 will be affected by this project.



US 158 will go to I-95 at the NC 46 interchange to bypass Weldon
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2021, 01:35:38 PM
I was unable to clinch NC 97 yesterday because the Swift Creek Bridge is closed until July 2022. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-edgecombe-county-bridge-replacement.aspx)

Also I noticed that construction is ongoing on part of the US 158 widening around Garysburg. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx)  I am unable to see if the routings of US 158, NC 46, and NC 186 will be affected by this project.



US 158 will go to I-95 at the NC 46 interchange to bypass Weldon

I guess I should hold off on any further clinching of US 158 between I-95 and Murfreesboro for the time being then.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 19, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
I guess that western extension of NC-186 along NC-46 isn't happening. I didn't think Weldon was such a hopping place to merit a bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 19, 2021, 01:54:11 PM
NC 46 is getting rerouted to bypass Weldon because of the ridiculously sharp turns that goes through downtown Weldon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2021, 02:15:26 PM
I guess that western extension of NC-186 along NC-46 isn't happening. I didn't think Weldon was such a hopping place to merit a bypass.

Was there supposed to be another extension?  NC 186 was extended along NC 46 and then SR 1200 up to NC 48 in 2013.   (http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/nc186.html)

I drove the extension of NC 186 yesterday so I could clinch NC/VA 186.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on December 19, 2021, 02:35:28 PM
Exit 176 on I-95 STILL hasn't been changed to reflect that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 19, 2021, 02:38:16 PM
Exit 176 on I-95 STILL hasn't been changed to reflect that.

That is correct, but there are NC 186 shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@36.475594,-77.6162913,3a,75y,5.69h,74.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sldeLFQTvGXkYDMuGOefRqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) on the extension.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 21, 2021, 03:06:34 PM
Somebody should tell Google, so they can send the Google Car there and update the map.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2021, 03:15:29 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx

No more trumpet. Also Halifax Road will be realigned to connect with Exit 145.

Also I couldn’t drive on NC 33 west to I-95, I take the project here is what closed the road west of an intersection with US 301 this past weekend?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 21, 2021, 04:13:23 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx

No more trumpet. Also Halifax Road will be realigned to connect with Exit 145.

Also I couldn’t drive on NC 33 west to I-95, I take the project here is what closed the road west of an intersection with US 301 this past weekend?

Don't know why NC 33 would be closed entirely west of US 301.  You cannot crossover I-95 but that is 5 miles away and you should still be able to access to/from I-95 NB.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 21, 2021, 04:59:34 PM
Not directly west of US 301, but at a local road that heads south to Good Rock.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 21, 2021, 05:59:00 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx

No more trumpet. Also Halifax Road will be realigned to connect with Exit 145.


Quote from: ncdot
"Improve the intersection of N.C. 4 and N.C. 48 by adding a left turn lane on N.C. 48."

Uggh! That's the only good part of this project. Even if they ditched the roundabouts, it would still suck.



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 21, 2021, 07:05:53 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-06-29-i-95-improvements-nash-county.aspx

No more trumpet. Also Halifax Road will be realigned to connect with Exit 145.


Quote from: ncdot
"Improve the intersection of N.C. 4 and N.C. 48 by adding a left turn lane on N.C. 48."

Uggh! That's the only good part of this project. Even if they ditched the roundabouts, it would still suck.
I think it's fine...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 21, 2021, 08:10:14 PM
I don't. This replacement is sure to disrupt the flow of traffic to and from I-95. I know it's for the former Interstate Business Loop 95 which no longer exists, and I can live with that. But the trumpet is much smoother drive to get to and from 4 and 48 from the interstate. Hell, even a semi-directional T would be acceptable.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 09:38:40 PM
After driving to Raleigh today... there's still the faded signs on I-540. Fascinating.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on December 22, 2021, 11:47:20 PM
After driving to Raleigh today... there's still the faded signs on I-540. Fascinating.

And another inane post just to boost your post total.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 22, 2021, 11:57:21 PM
After driving to Raleigh today... there's still the faded signs on I-540. Fascinating.

And another inane post just to boost your post total.
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

I rarely go out of town anyway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on December 23, 2021, 09:46:55 AM
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

That would at least be something noteworthy, yes. Or at least provide some context. Are the faded signs dated from when the various sections of I-540 originally opened? Speculate and maybe someone could confirm.

Otherwise it would be like me posting "The overheads on I-4 east at SR 39/39A are fading badly and probably will be replaced during the next resurfacing project through Plant City." That's true, but its inane. I.e. "so, what?"
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 23, 2021, 12:07:34 PM
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

That would at least be something noteworthy, yes. Or at least provide some context. Are the faded signs dated from when the various sections of I-540 originally opened? Speculate and maybe someone could confirm.

Otherwise it would be like me posting "The overheads on I-4 east at SR 39/39A are fading badly and probably will be replaced during the next resurfacing project through Plant City." That's true, but its inane. I.e. "so, what?"
Ah. At least east of US-1... As of December 22 2021, they have not been fixed/replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.873711,-78.5668159,3a,15y,287.64h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC-wIuA4R8ENrFxARrJAwyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7963165,-78.5153332,3a,19.7y,186.71h,98.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s27Z1QYO0UAOSE_X7PaE8dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

this is not I-540, but this is also pretty bad as well - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8114376,-78.6106559,3a,72.5y,92.1h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTzrlIAY8QDv6dLOGSlGTWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 23, 2021, 01:29:59 PM
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

That would at least be something noteworthy, yes. Or at least provide some context. Are the faded signs dated from when the various sections of I-540 originally opened? Speculate and maybe someone could confirm.

Otherwise it would be like me posting "The overheads on I-4 east at SR 39/39A are fading badly and probably will be replaced during the next resurfacing project through Plant City." That's true, but its inane. I.e. "so, what?"
Ah. At least east of US-1... As of December 22 2021, they have not been fixed/replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.873711,-78.5668159,3a,15y,287.64h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC-wIuA4R8ENrFxARrJAwyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7963165,-78.5153332,3a,19.7y,186.71h,98.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s27Z1QYO0UAOSE_X7PaE8dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

this is not I-540, but this is also pretty bad as well - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8114376,-78.6106559,3a,72.5y,92.1h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTzrlIAY8QDv6dLOGSlGTWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's some good news for you...

Signage plans are released from US 70 and US 1 in northern Raleigh along I-540.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/WAKE_47954.3.1_I-5999_C204656/Standard%20PDF%20Files/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 23, 2021, 02:32:15 PM
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

That would at least be something noteworthy, yes. Or at least provide some context. Are the faded signs dated from when the various sections of I-540 originally opened? Speculate and maybe someone could confirm.

Otherwise it would be like me posting "The overheads on I-4 east at SR 39/39A are fading badly and probably will be replaced during the next resurfacing project through Plant City." That's true, but its inane. I.e. "so, what?"
Ah. At least east of US-1... As of December 22 2021, they have not been fixed/replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.873711,-78.5668159,3a,15y,287.64h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC-wIuA4R8ENrFxARrJAwyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7963165,-78.5153332,3a,19.7y,186.71h,98.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s27Z1QYO0UAOSE_X7PaE8dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

this is not I-540, but this is also pretty bad as well - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8114376,-78.6106559,3a,72.5y,92.1h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTzrlIAY8QDv6dLOGSlGTWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's some good news for you...

Signage plans are released from US 70 and US 1 in northern Raleigh along I-540.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/WAKE_47954.3.1_I-5999_C204656/Standard%20PDF%20Files/
That's amazing!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 23, 2021, 11:14:29 PM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 24, 2021, 06:56:26 AM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

Well it may be related to a truck restriction into Raleigh, but these shields (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7522845,-78.6489941,3a,75y,0.42h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVG55SXryEsiFHjcYff3z3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) beg to differ on any realignment. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 24, 2021, 10:05:04 AM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 24, 2021, 10:21:46 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Q31GnJZo1fFvdrVu6


I can believe the left over part, as it took years to remove Richmond off the US 301 guide in Battleboro at NC4, but US 401 always went through the city.


The original I-440 wasn’t signed until the 90’s as it was built as bypass for US 1 and 64. The freeway started as a super two from Sanford and widened at Cary and became US 1 and 64 to Capital Blvd where US 1 joined US 401 and 64 continued to the NewBern Avenue interchange and ended.

In 1995 I remember the four lane freeway for US 1 & 64 was not up to standards and even had older ground guides.  Some I think still exist in Cary today.   It was US 1, and 64 then for sure. Before I first drove it, mis eighties maps showed NC and 70 then on the loop as US 401 was through Downtown Railiegh. NC 50 too was signed on the southern and western ends.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 24, 2021, 10:42:18 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Q31GnJZo1fFvdrVu6


I can believe the left over part, as it took years to remove Richmond off the US 301 guide in Battleboro at NC4, but US 401 always went through the city.

US 401 did not always run through the city.  No primary routes ran inside the beltline from 1984-91.

Here is the 1991 NCDOT document (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/1991_07_16.pdf) putting US 401 back through the city.  There is also a 1991 AASHTO document (https://na4.visualvault.com/app/AASHTO/Default/documentviewer?DhID=79baab40-02d5-ea11-a98a-ff9beffbfef8&hidemenu=true) doing the same...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 24, 2021, 12:28:46 PM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!

For some reason, I thought that the shields were there when I drove through here daily during my NCDOT internship, but I guess I was wrong. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on December 24, 2021, 09:13:33 PM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!

For some reason, I thought that the shields were there when I drove through here daily during my NCDOT internship, but I guess I was wrong.

Your memory is not all wrong.  The overhead BGS have no shields for South Saunders Street NORTH (Exit 298B) and US-70/US-401/NC-50 shields for South Saunders Street SOUTH (Exit 298A).  Those are side-by-side in advance of the exit (in both directions).  It is amusing to see the directionals twice (both street name and compass direction).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 24, 2021, 10:14:05 PM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!

For some reason, I thought that the shields were there when I drove through here daily during my NCDOT internship, but I guess I was wrong.

Your memory is not all wrong.  The overhead BGS have no shields for South Saunders Street NORTH (Exit 298B) and US-70/US-401/NC-50 shields for South Saunders Street SOUTH (Exit 298A).  Those are side-by-side in advance of the exit (in both directions).  It is amusing to see the directionals twice (both street name and compass direction).
Apparently during the Fortify project when the signs were replaced NCDOT told the contractors simply to replace the overheads as they were, possibly forgetting about the outdated signs for North South Saunders Street. At least they bothered to put back the US 70/401 and NC 50 trailblazers on I-40 East taken down during the project, I never remembered seeing any WB.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on December 27, 2021, 11:37:45 AM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!

For some reason, I thought that the shields were there when I drove through here daily during my NCDOT internship, but I guess I was wrong.

Your memory is not all wrong.  The overhead BGS have no shields for South Saunders Street NORTH (Exit 298B) and US-70/US-401/NC-50 shields for South Saunders Street SOUTH (Exit 298A).  Those are side-by-side in advance of the exit (in both directions).  It is amusing to see the directionals twice (both street name and compass direction).
Apparently during the Fortify project when the signs were replaced NCDOT told the contractors simply to replace the overheads as they were, possibly forgetting about the outdated signs for North South Saunders Street. At least they bothered to put back the US 70/401 and NC 50 trailblazers on I-40 East taken down during the project, I never remembered seeing any WB.

I’ve always thought that it could be something to do about trying to prevent thru traffic and truck traffic particularly from taking a route through downtown. US 70/401 looks like a more appealing thru route than South Saunders Street imho.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 27, 2021, 06:13:24 PM
I saw on I-40 at the US 70 and 401 interchange that new WB/ NB omit the US routes into the city as well as NC 50.

Is US 70 being realigned again?

This is leftover signage from when the routes followed the beltline around the city.

The same signage is up on I-40 EB but if you look at the 2007 GMSV (https://goo.gl/maps/MHqjfNar5mA4dprG7) there is an additional BGS.  For some reason NCDOT has never changed the BGS for S Saunders ST into downtown.  Not too good since these routes were removed from I-40 in 1991!

For some reason, I thought that the shields were there when I drove through here daily during my NCDOT internship, but I guess I was wrong.

Your memory is not all wrong.  The overhead BGS have no shields for South Saunders Street NORTH (Exit 298B) and US-70/US-401/NC-50 shields for South Saunders Street SOUTH (Exit 298A).  Those are side-by-side in advance of the exit (in both directions).  It is amusing to see the directionals twice (both street name and compass direction).
Apparently during the Fortify project when the signs were replaced NCDOT told the contractors simply to replace the overheads as they were, possibly forgetting about the outdated signs for North South Saunders Street. At least they bothered to put back the US 70/401 and NC 50 trailblazers on I-40 East taken down during the project, I never remembered seeing any WB.

I’ve always thought that it could be something to do about trying to prevent thru traffic and truck traffic particularly from taking a route through downtown. US 70/401 looks like a more appealing thru route than South Saunders Street imho.
Truckers are not going to be lured off an interstate that easily. I support routing some primary routes through cities because this helps folks unfamiliar with the area find their way.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 28, 2021, 05:32:01 PM
Considering that US 70 east of Raleigh is freeway defaulting into I-40 and soon NC 540 no one heading through Raleigh is going to drive US 70 the entire way.  So why not place it back on the interstates or make NC 540 the new US 70. Being US 301 is tolled in Delaware, this could now be a thing for US 70.  Then extend US 70 Business from Smithfield to replace it to I-540 at the Triangle.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 28, 2021, 06:02:26 PM
Considering that US 70 east of Raleigh is freeway defaulting into I-40 and soon NC 540 no one heading through Raleigh is going to drive US 70 the entire way.  So why not place it back on the interstates or make NC 540 the new US 70. Being US 301 is tolled in Delaware, this could now be a thing for US 70.  Then extend US 70 Business from Smithfield to replace it to I-540 at the Triangle.
Routing US 70 along interstates doesn't really help anyone going anywhere. Although I live in Durham I'm going to defend downtown Raleigh. Lots of people want to go there. It's the state capital, so it has all the state offices. It has the North Carolina History Museum, the North Carolina Natural Science Museum, and three higher education institutions. US 70 leads people to those destinations and it should stay exactly where it is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 08:26:57 PM
Plus the idea works better to keep the US routings on their original routings, and have the freeway routings be separate numbers.

NCDOT is planning on re-routing US-264 off of the freeway and back onto its original alignment once I-587 is designated, for example.

NC-540 is best left a sole beltway routing / designation, not multiplexed with other routes. Look at the cluster that Indianapolis’ I-465 is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 28, 2021, 09:09:05 PM
Plus the idea works better to keep the US routings on their original routings, and have the freeway routings be separate numbers.

NCDOT is planning on re-routing US-264 off of the freeway and back onto its original alignment once I-587 is designated, for example.

NC-540 is best left a sole beltway routing / designation, not multiplexed with other routes. Look at the cluster that Indianapolis’ I-465 is.
First line: Agree with that. So it's not clusterfucked with so many numbers on one routing.

Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?

Third line: Again, also agree.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 09:16:11 PM
Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.

In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.

The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 28, 2021, 10:41:14 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 28, 2021, 10:55:50 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

And I-587 would not be marked on Google Maps because it has not been sign-posted yet. It won’t be until 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 28, 2021, 10:58:47 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

And I-587 would not be marked on Google Maps because it has not been sign-posted yet. It won’t be until 2022.
It's nice to see that development is happening to the highway!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2021, 12:27:18 PM
Annual toll rate increase for the Triangle Expressway and Monroe Expressway goes into effect Jan. 1.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-22-annual-toll-rate-increase-jan1.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-12-22-annual-toll-rate-increase-jan1.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 01:23:57 PM
And as I can see, it has to do with budgeting issues so they want to increase the toll fees. Also, they DID plan to toll I-95 but that plan is officially dead and won't happen.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 01:50:51 PM
And as I can see, it has to do with budgeting issues so they want to increase the toll fees. Also, they DID plan to toll I-95 but that plan is officially dead and won't happen.
The toll increases were planned from the beginning of the roads being constructed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 29, 2021, 02:20:31 PM
If the plan to toll Interstate 95 had gone forward, I would have supported converting the rest areas into "food and fuel" service areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on December 29, 2021, 03:21:46 PM
If the plan to toll Interstate 95 had gone forward, I would have supported converting the rest areas into "food and fuel" service areas.

I doubt they would've been converted to service plazas. They're still on an interstate and it's well after 1960.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 29, 2021, 03:31:52 PM
If the plan to toll Interstate 95 had gone forward, I would have supported converting the rest areas into "food and fuel" service areas.

I doubt they would've been converted to service plazas. They're still on an interstate and it's well after 1960.
At least you are not stranded like you are on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on December 29, 2021, 03:39:11 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

And I-587 would not be marked on Google Maps because it has not been sign-posted yet. It won’t be until 2022.

Those things aren't related, Google is known for marking route designations that are not posted in the field or before they are posted (e.g. I-69 in Houston)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 29, 2021, 06:05:15 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

And I-587 would not be marked on Google Maps because it has not been sign-posted yet. It won’t be until 2022.

Those things aren't related, Google is known for marking route designations that are not posted in the field or before they are posted (e.g. I-69 in Houston)
I-69 is sign-posted in Houston. It has been for years now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 29, 2021, 07:32:35 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on December 30, 2021, 10:20:32 AM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?
https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

And I-587 would not be marked on Google Maps because it has not been sign-posted yet. It won’t be until 2022.

Those things aren't related, Google is known for marking route designations that are not posted in the field or before they are posted (e.g. I-69 in Houston)
I-69 is sign-posted in Houston. It has been for years now.

I was referring to how Google Maps had I-69 on its map in the early 2010s (about 2010 or 2011) but it wasn't until the mid to late 2010s (about 2017 or 2018) that I-69 signs were actually posted.

Could do the same thing here
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on December 30, 2021, 08:50:46 PM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?

It's a business park owned by Wilson County.  They just recently awarded an infrastructure improvement project (sewage/wastewater) for the property this past October.  The name is after 587 but I believe Wilson County has had this land for some time.

https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 30, 2021, 11:43:20 PM
On Rand McNallys 2021 edition, they show NC 295 as I-295 even though no signs at the Eastover End from I-95.

I wonder also will Parkton be a control city when the south end exchange opens?  Right now you must exit NB at US 301 near St. Paul or SB at NC 59 to US 301 south. With the I-295 loop completed, I would assume that it would be the direct way to that particular city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 31, 2021, 10:45:50 AM
Google Maps doesn't mark Interstate 587 on its maps yet, but I did find something interesting just south of Exit 49 (NC 58). In the middle of what seems to be vacant land, there is something called "The Campus at 587": https://www.google.com/maps/@35.672606,-77.8508316,1878m/data=!3m1!1e3. Is this a real place, and is it in any way related to the fact that the US 264 freeway will soon become Interstate 587?

It's a business park owned by Wilson County.  They just recently awarded an infrastructure improvement project (sewage/wastewater) for the property this past October.  The name is after 587 but I believe Wilson County has had this land for some time.

https://www.wilsonedc.com/Images/wilsonedc/site/brochures/Flyer_Wilson_TheCampusat587.pdf

Yep. IIRC, the park was gonna have a different name (I forget the name) before I-587 was put on the books. The name change was very recent.

Funny thing is that when Greenville first started it's push to get US-264 turned into an interstate, Wilson (city & county) was indifferent to the idea since they were satisfied with just I-95 & I-795, but now that FHWA has given the thumbs up to I-587, it looks like Wilson's tune is changing pretty quick.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on December 31, 2021, 01:31:59 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?

Drove over the eastbound one on wednesday. Work was recently completed. I did not notice any obvious extra space for an additional lane, but its a really short bridge, so I may have missed something. Are there plans for 6-lane expansion in that area? Its very rural, so I would be surprised if that happened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 31, 2021, 04:19:09 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?

Drove over the eastbound one on wednesday. Work was recently completed. I did not notice any obvious extra space for an additional lane, but its a really short bridge, so I may have missed something. Are there plans for 6-lane expansion in that area? Its very rural, so I would be surprised if that happened.

A project to widen that stretch of I-40 was in the last round of prioritization (and maybe earlier), but did not make it into the draft 2020 STIP. I can’t find a feasibility study either. Any potential widening would probably be a decade away at the earliest.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Prioritization%20Data/Z%20-%20Archives%20(P5.0,%20P4.0,%20P3.0,%20P2.0,%20P1.0)/Prioritization%205.0/P5.0%20Final%20SPOT%20On!ine%204-Page%20Project%20Reports/Division13/H172232.PDF (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Prioritization%20Data/Z%20-%20Archives%20(P5.0,%20P4.0,%20P3.0,%20P2.0,%20P1.0)/Prioritization%205.0/P5.0%20Final%20SPOT%20On!ine%204-Page%20Project%20Reports/Division13/H172232.PDF)

Traffic volumes are fairly high on I-40 between U.S. 64 in Morganton and U.S. 321 in Hickory, ranging from 49,500 to 53,500 AADT in 2019. The portions of I-95 currently or about to be widened to eight lanes has volumes between 56,000 and 64,500 in Lumberton; 50,500 - 52,000 between Lumberton and Fayetteville; and 56,500 - 65,000 from north of Fayetteville to I-40. Last I checked, Robeson County isn’t exactly a sprawling metropolis, but the volumes on I-95 warrant expansion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on December 31, 2021, 05:36:03 PM
^

I-95 is different in the sense of I-40 of having high peak weekend volumes. That also has to be considered. It's the major north-south highway between the Northeast and Florida.

As far as I'm aware, there's not much in the way of recurring congestion on I-40. I-95, on the other hand, sees frequent congestion, particularly in the area between I-40 and I-74, during peak weekends and travel periods.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 31, 2021, 05:43:40 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?


Drove over the eastbound one on wednesday. Work was recently completed. I did not notice any obvious extra space for an additional lane, but its a really short bridge, so I may have missed something. Are there plans for 6-lane expansion in that area? Its very rural, so I would be surprised if that happened.

Definitely not widened for future expansion:
https://goo.gl/maps/DBXPLCU6vpyj1u2DA
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on December 31, 2021, 06:01:10 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?


Drove over the eastbound one on wednesday. Work was recently completed. I did not notice any obvious extra space for an additional lane, but its a really short bridge, so I may have missed something. Are there plans for 6-lane expansion in that area? Its very rural, so I would be surprised if that happened.

Definitely not widened for future expansion:
https://goo.gl/maps/DBXPLCU6vpyj1u2DA
unless they have to widen it when construction actually starts
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 31, 2021, 06:04:12 PM
I was thinking more along the line of were the twin bridges designed such that the additional lanes could easily be added in the median gap.

There is a lot of $$ flight out of Hickory, Newton, Conover to Morganton causing more commuting.  Plus Marion is growing with couples who split their commute with one working in Charlotte, the other in Asheville.  Morganton has become a hot spot due to a very active and robust downtown night life.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 31, 2021, 07:36:18 PM
Just giving everybody a heads up to the ones have not been in that area...

Or, maybe.. I should only post about that if the signs have ACTUALLY been replaced instead of just giving updates?

That would at least be something noteworthy, yes. Or at least provide some context. Are the faded signs dated from when the various sections of I-540 originally opened? Speculate and maybe someone could confirm.

Otherwise it would be like me posting "The overheads on I-4 east at SR 39/39A are fading badly and probably will be replaced during the next resurfacing project through Plant City." That's true, but its inane. I.e. "so, what?"
Ah. At least east of US-1... As of December 22 2021, they have not been fixed/replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.873711,-78.5668159,3a,15y,287.64h,94.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sC-wIuA4R8ENrFxARrJAwyw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7963165,-78.5153332,3a,19.7y,186.71h,98.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s27Z1QYO0UAOSE_X7PaE8dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

this is not I-540, but this is also pretty bad as well - https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8114376,-78.6106559,3a,72.5y,92.1h,87.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTzrlIAY8QDv6dLOGSlGTWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Here's some good news for you...

Signage plans are released from US 70 and US 1 in northern Raleigh along I-540.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/01-18-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/WAKE_47954.3.1_I-5999_C204656/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

That's good news. I wish Georgia would outsource this type of work. Instead metro Atlanta must endure this:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51476152343_44b2e6d53c_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/4017WS)6 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/4017WS) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51665653350_e1ea8d7744_k.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/4qNb91)285 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/4qNb91) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 31, 2021, 08:00:30 PM
I was thinking more along the line of were the twin bridges designed such that the additional lanes could easily be added in the median gap.


Satellite view suggests yes they have prepped the area between the bridges to add within the median.  I can't believe it would've been that expensive on such a short bridge to go ahead and build the full width bridge for 6 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 01, 2022, 07:53:01 AM
^

I-95 is different in the sense of I-40 of having high peak weekend volumes. That also has to be considered. It's the major north-south highway between the Northeast and Florida.

As far as I'm aware, there's not much in the way of recurring congestion on I-40. I-95, on the other hand, sees frequent congestion, particularly in the area between I-40 and I-74, during peak weekends and travel periods.

And no one goes to the mountains for the weekend....

No, it's not to I-95 levels. The point was that it doesn't matter if an area is "rural" or not if there are high volumes on the highway that warrant improvements. It is mostly "nuisance" congestion on this stretch of I-40 at this point in that you cannot easily change lanes or pass, but are still traveling at or near the speed limit. Up the number of trucks and/or overall volume and you'll get some recurring congestion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 01, 2022, 10:35:21 AM
^

I-95 is different in the sense of I-40 of having high peak weekend volumes. That also has to be considered. It's the major north-south highway between the Northeast and Florida.

As far as I'm aware, there's not much in the way of recurring congestion on I-40. I-95, on the other hand, sees frequent congestion, particularly in the area between I-40 and I-74, during peak weekends and travel periods.

And no one goes to the mountains for the weekend....

No, it's not to I-95 levels. The point was that it doesn't matter if an area is "rural" or not if there are high volumes on the highway that warrant improvements. It is mostly "nuisance" congestion on this stretch of I-40 at this point in that you cannot easily change lanes or pass, but are still traveling at or near the speed limit. Up the number of trucks and/or overall volume and you'll get some recurring congestion.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I-40 peak weekend traffic (going to the mountains in the Fall) is worse than I-95 peak weekend traffic (probably Spring Break, but Thanksgiving might be worse).  It's just that there's only a few sections of I-40 that get tested.  The worst is probably the four-lane section US-15/501 to the I-85 split near Hillsborough.  That gets hit with hour-long backups westbound all evening on Fridays and eastbound starting late on Sunday afternoons.  Amazingly, the Death Valley section of I-40 through Greensboro seems to get hit hard as well (even though the southern part of the Greensboro Urban Loop is only slightly longer and never congested).  But west of Winston-Salem, a significant portion of the Fall weekend traffic takes US-421 to Boone, which reduces the traffic on I-40 heading to Asheville.

Thank goodness that the I-85/I-40 multiplex from Hillsborough -to- Greensboro is eight lanes.  During the Fall weekends, traffic along The Spine is the heaviest you will ever see on this stretch but still mostly free-flowing.  Whenever we have braved a trip west during the Fall, the traffic coming back on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening is wall-to-wall.  Fortunately, we get off the Interstate before everything jams up a few miles before Exit 261 to stay on I-40.  (But sometimes, we make the mistake of going out to eat in Durham on Sunday evening and forgetting about the I-40 traffic jam).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 01, 2022, 10:37:28 AM
With respect to Thanksgiving traffic, I-40 still gets heavy traffic but it doesn't seem as bad as I-95, I-85 or even worse, I-77.  Plus, I-85 traffic gets jammed in both directions for Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 01, 2022, 11:38:13 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I-40 peak weekend traffic (going to the mountains in the Fall) is worse than I-95 peak weekend traffic (probably Spring Break, but Thanksgiving might be worse).  It's just that there's only a few sections of I-40 that get tested.  The worst is probably the four-lane section US-15/501 to the I-85 split near Hillsborough.  That gets hit with hour-long backups westbound all evening on Fridays and eastbound starting late on Sunday afternoons.  Amazingly, the Death Valley section of I-40 through Greensboro seems to get hit hard as well (even though the southern part of the Greensboro Urban Loop is only slightly longer and never congested).  But west of Winston-Salem, a significant portion of the Fall weekend traffic takes US-421 to Boone, which reduces the traffic on I-40 heading to Asheville.
My comment was in reference to the segment of I-40 west of Statesville / Hickory and comparison to I-95, not any segments of I-40 east of there.

I’m aware I-40 has worse spots further east that are higher priority.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 01, 2022, 12:30:55 PM
Or how about this - widen I-40 from 4 to 6 lanes from Waynesville ALL THE WAY to Winston-Salem.

And in Asheville, some parts might need 8 lanes, such as near the I-240 beltway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 01, 2022, 01:09:45 PM
Or how about this - widen I-40 from 4 to 6 lanes from Waynesville ALL THE WAY to Winston-Salem.
Could be a long range goal, but there’s certainly higher priorities in the state.

For example, the entire length of I-95. Completing I-26 near Asheville and other needed widenings along that route. And others.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 01, 2022, 06:00:52 PM
Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.

In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.

The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
With that being done, it looks like it will be this (https://prnt.sc/1tw0n1u) proposal. Was not expecting it going that overboard but it's fine.

And with that being done, the existing US-264 ALT will FOR SURE be converted into a business route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on January 01, 2022, 11:48:31 PM
Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.

In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.

The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
With that being done, it looks like it will be this (https://prnt.sc/1tw0n1u) proposal. Was not expecting it going that overboard but it's fine.

And with that being done, the existing US-264 ALT will FOR SURE be converted into a business route.

IMO, US 264 needs to go as it is another one state route that is not per current federal policies regarding designations.  Plus its overlap to Raleigh with its parent route is so redundant.  It ends at I-440 where US 64 continues.  Plus with I-587 someday coming, it will be mostly overlapped with that future interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 02, 2022, 12:03:49 AM
Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.

In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.

The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
With that being done, it looks like it will be this (https://prnt.sc/1tw0n1u) proposal. Was not expecting it going that overboard but it's fine.

And with that being done, the existing US-264 ALT will FOR SURE be converted into a business route.

IMO, US 264 needs to go as it is another one state route that is not per current federal policies regarding designations.  Plus its overlap to Raleigh with its parent route is so redundant.  It ends at I-440 where US 64 continues.  Plus with I-587 someday coming, it will be mostly overlapped with that future interstate.
I guess from Zebulon to Sims could be renumbered to a state highway route or something.

Sprjus4 did mention about wanting it truncated between Greenville to Manns Harbor.

And if they want to move US-264 back on its original alignment then I would like to see the same happen for US64 when I-87 gets operational.

It does feel weird of how US-264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh (even though some signage does not show US-264 Example here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.834352,-78.2997313,3a,16y,284.5h,97.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU0Q6P-RB0ztyoUkjamaGVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), probably due to political reasons.

I agree having 2 US highways on the same highway feels overkill. I-87, US-64, US-264.

I wish they would move US-64 back on its original alignment along New Bern Ave since we are almost having all interstates on highways in the capital area, but probably won't happen until I-87 gets extended to Rockingham (and if it will get extended).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 03, 2022, 05:44:03 PM
There have been 2 sets of mainline bridges reconstructed on I-40 in Burke County in recent years.  Does anyone know if the were built in a manner to allow easy expansion to 6 lanes?

Back to this, "easy" is relative, but it's doable. A good example of where this is currently occurring is nearby on I-40 at the I-77 interchange in Statesville. The two I-40 bridges over the ramp east of I-77 are being expanded from 2 lanes to 3 lanes (4 westbound?) as part of the second round of interchange revisions. They are actually going out instead of towards the median, which can be seen in the public meeting map (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40-i77-interchange/Documents/i-40-i77-interchange-improvements-map.pdf) and in Google Street View from December 2021 (https://goo.gl/maps/1Fqf5kYwdEy23juh8). They were just built in 2015.

They can be compared from below in Street View.

2019 (https://goo.gl/maps/RckTZp46d6THL6367)
2021 (https://goo.gl/maps/zsUW1dFjpRwyhYqX6)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on January 03, 2022, 07:40:59 PM
Second line: Are there any official plans or documents rather than some random roadgeek saying that US-264 will be moved back onto its original alignment without providing a news article or a link to it?
I reached out to NCDOT a few weeks ago in regards of I-587 and what might happen to US 264. I got a response today that they are indeed planning to submit a rerouting to US 264 and a elimination of US 264 ALT in the AASHTO Fall Meeting. They were even kind enough to share the draft files they plan to use in the upcoming meeting.

In the requests, they will relocate US 264 along existing US 264 Alt from Exit 51 south through Saratoga and Farmville, then in Greenville it will connect onto NC 11 Bypass north, a total of 26.43 miles relocation; that section of US 264 Alt will be eliminated.

The timeline after that depends on other factors, but they hope to have I-587 and US 264 signage done in 2022.
With that being done, it looks like it will be this (https://prnt.sc/1tw0n1u) proposal. Was not expecting it going that overboard but it's fine.

And with that being done, the existing US-264 ALT will FOR SURE be converted into a business route.

IMO, US 264 needs to go as it is another one state route that is not per current federal policies regarding designations.  Plus its overlap to Raleigh with its parent route is so redundant.  It ends at I-440 where US 64 continues.  Plus with I-587 someday coming, it will be mostly overlapped with that future interstate.
I guess from Zebulon to Sims could be renumbered to a state highway route or something.

Sprjus4 did mention about wanting it truncated between Greenville to Manns Harbor.

And if they want to move US-264 back on its original alignment then I would like to see the same happen for US64 when I-87 gets operational.

It does feel weird of how US-264 was extended from Zebulon to Raleigh (even though some signage does not show US-264 Example here (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.834352,-78.2997313,3a,16y,284.5h,97.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sU0Q6P-RB0ztyoUkjamaGVQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)), probably due to political reasons.

I agree having 2 US highways on the same highway feels overkill. I-87, US-64, US-264.

I wish they would move US-64 back on its original alignment along New Bern Ave since we are almost having all interstates on highways in the capital area, but probably won't happen until I-87 gets extended to Rockingham (and if it will get extended).

I definitely think both US 64 and US 264 should go back on their original routings once the Interstates are complete. It just makes more sense than having long concurrencies and long alternate or business routes.

For 264, I don’t necessarily want to see it truncated but I agree it’s usefulness east of Greenville is gonna be limited. I highly doubt NCDOT would go for it now but there used to be an N.C. 264 which started in Zebulon and ran along NC 96 and NC 98 to Durham. That would be an interesting and rather useful extension as a Triangle bypass. But as someone from Wake Forest, I think the “98”  number would need to stay because it’s so entrenched.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 04, 2022, 01:39:17 PM
Is it just me or does it look like this bridge will collapse? These are really REALLY in deficient condition and I feel like they could collapse because of the condition they are in (I think they were rehabbed before), but I feel like they could collapse because of the rough condition, or at least have a weight limit on them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7840259,-78.7006862,3a,31.1y,157.86h,94.85t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1shZ-Fog9IKFe0l_PC8_Xohw!2e0!5s20210801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DhZ-Fog9IKFe0l_PC8_Xohw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.00216%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 04, 2022, 01:55:40 PM
Is it just me or does it look like this bridge will collapse? These are really REALLY in deficient condition and I feel like they could collapse because of the condition they are in (I think they were rehabbed before), but I feel like they could collapse because of the rough condition, or at least have a weight limit on them.

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7840259,-78.7006862,3a,31.1y,157.86h,94.85t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1shZ-Fog9IKFe0l_PC8_Xohw!2e0!5s20210801T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DhZ-Fog9IKFe0l_PC8_Xohw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D119.00216%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Never fear, the bridge won't collapse.  It's got plenty of tapered fill beneath the abutment, albeit that some has been eroded away.  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be crawling around on the concrete pad atop that tapered fill.  By the way, this section of I-440 is currently undergoing a major widening project that will certainly address this issue (and may have already; I'm tending to avoid that section of Raleigh these days due to construction congestion).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 04, 2022, 02:45:21 PM
Although not in NC, this is a bridge I often wonder about in terms of what does a failing pier really looked like to a trained eye (which is not me)...

https://goo.gl/maps/4ETRz2ZTj1avNrZP6

This bridge is getting ready to be replaced as part of the Express Lanes extensino but it has been like this a long time...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 04, 2022, 04:43:10 PM
Speaking of bridges, NCDOT will repair this Mozingo Rd bridge over US-264 after a truck driver hit it. I think it was sometime in October 2020 is when it happened.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Pages/Letting-Details.aspx?let_type=2&let_date=2022-01-26%2000:00:00

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6081035,-77.4824065,3a,32.2y,270.36h,97.26t/data=!3m8!1e1!3m6!1sQX7T6ewCSisqSKkGCWRUOQ!2e0!5s20211201T000000!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DQX7T6ewCSisqSKkGCWRUOQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D115.47526%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on January 04, 2022, 04:46:01 PM
That bridge isn't even bad. There were a few bridges in New York (of course) that had supplemental cross bracing added under the piers because they were in such sad shape.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 04, 2022, 04:50:58 PM
That bridge isn't even bad. There were a few bridges in New York (of course) that had supplemental cross bracing added under the piers because they were in such sad shape.
Agree with that, it's nowhere as bad as the GA 86 bridge that was struck by a truck back in July, this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.608106,-77.4825187,3a,38y,271.72h,100.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz5ojCtD9nKpMZpK-WnwrTg!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192) is the bridge that I'm talking about that would be repaired, although this bridge was built in 1998 per bridgereports.com and the one in Georgia that was struck was built in 1976 and it had the steel beams compared to the Mozingo one which uses concrete beams and concrete appears to be stronger in some aspects like when it gets hit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on January 04, 2022, 04:54:28 PM
Although not in NC, this is a bridge I often wonder about in terms of what does a failing pier really looked like to a trained eye (which is not me)...

https://goo.gl/maps/4ETRz2ZTj1avNrZP6

This bridge is getting ready to be replaced as part of the Express Lanes extensino but it has been like this a long time...

Before VDOT rebuilt the RPT-era bridges on I-95 in Richmond, many of them had crumbling supports like that.

And the bridges I'm referring to were the ones carrying I-95 itself..
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 10, 2022, 02:56:46 PM
I'm guessing this link shows that these roads will be widened that have 9 foot travel lanes to 10.5? It's needed, because they are dangerously narrow.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%202%20Letting/10-27-2021/DB00508%20PLANS.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 10, 2022, 03:46:54 PM
I'm guessing this link shows that these roads will be widened that have 9 foot travel lanes to 10.5? It's needed, because they are dangerously narrow.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%202%20Letting/10-27-2021/DB00508%20PLANS.pdf

You are correct about the increase in pavement width.  It has been a hallmark of NCDOT to systematically increase the pavement width over time.  As for whether the old pavement width was dangerous, I beg to differ.  The new pavement will be much closer to the ditch.  We live on a former dirt road that now has 12-foot lanes and 4 foot shoulders.  Whereas the main road in the area has 10-foot lanes and sometimes a 2-foot shoulder.  Now, there's no room for error if something forces you off the pavement (which does happen occasionally).  At least you can see the combine coming from a mile away, and pull over as far as possible at a slow speed.  I felt much safer in the days that we had 8-foot lanes with 4-foot full shoulders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 11, 2022, 01:36:07 AM
Definitely ironic of how all of these business have been acquired for the reconstruction of this interchange. It will be a diamond. A folded diamond was considered but it seems like they favored the standard diamond one.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps/U-5896%20Guilford%20October%2012%202021.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 11, 2022, 02:38:24 AM
Definitely ironic of how all of these business have been acquired for the reconstruction of this interchange. It will be a diamond. A folded diamond was considered but it seems like they favored the standard diamond one.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps/U-5896%20Guilford%20October%2012%202021.pdf

Not really. The businesses around the interchange already closed down not long ago. Besides, the interchange is in a BAD shape. too many accidents.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 11, 2022, 04:51:56 AM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 11, 2022, 06:10:31 AM
Definitely ironic of how all of these business have been acquired for the reconstruction of this interchange. It will be a diamond. A folded diamond was considered but it seems like they favored the standard diamond one.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/pdea/PermApps/U-5896%20Guilford%20October%2012%202021.pdf

Not really. The businesses around the interchange already closed down not long ago. Besides, the interchange is in a BAD shape. too many accidents.
Makes sense. Diamond interchanges are the easiest to merge on and off.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 11, 2022, 12:05:53 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

And NCDOT, in their apparent quest to make 3di directionality as unnecessarily confusing as possible, is changing the open portion of NC 540 from north/south to east/west, with eastbound going south toward US 1 and NC 55 and westbound going north toward I-540. This means that from I-40, there will be signs listing I-540 East and NC 540 East side-by-side, both going to completely different places. This is even worse than the soon-to-be split between I-74 West and US 74 West at Rockingham, since I-/NC 540 is for all intents and purposes a single route, unlike I-74 and US 74.

On the bright side, these plans include the conversion of NC 147 Toll to NC 885 Toll, plus some of the I-885-only signage for the Durham Freeway. In case anyone else was curious how they were going to sign that, there you go.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on January 11, 2022, 12:14:20 PM
I was on Historic Aerials dot com, to find out what the original Exit 107 configuration was before I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock.  To my dismay, I see no collection of aerial photography prior to 1983.  So being that stretch of freeway opened to traffic in 1977 or circa, the 1983 aerial shows pretty much what is today.

Does any one recall if there even was an interchange there at all? I seem to remember an at grade there where four lane US 301 defaulted into the four lane I-95 with two lane US 301 south of there being a wye split and NB US 301 having to stop and yield to the 301 SB to I-95 NB traffic and I-95 north yo US 301 traffic.

However the present day interchange was under construction at that time I remember. So that could have been a temporary set up while the ramps were either being done or redone. So all I know the exchange was there originally but got redone for whatever reason.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 11, 2022, 01:13:39 PM
I was on Historic Aerials dot com, to find out what the original Exit 107 configuration was before I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock.  To my dismay, I see no collection of aerial photography prior to 1983.  So being that stretch of freeway opened to traffic in 1977 or circa, the 1983 aerial shows pretty much what is today.

Does any one recall if there even was an interchange there at all? I seem to remember an at grade there where four lane US 301 defaulted into the four lane I-95 with two lane US 301 south of there being a wye split and NB US 301 having to stop and yield to the 301 SB to I-95 NB traffic and I-95 north yo US 301 traffic.

However the present day interchange was under construction at that time I remember. So that could have been a temporary set up while the ramps were either being done or redone. So all I know the exchange was there originally but got redone for whatever reason.

The interchange was opened a little before the rest of 95 was opened north to Gold Rock.  The bridge is dated 1977 and the rest of 95 opened in late 1978.  i do not believe there was any other bridge in this location.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2022, 02:57:08 PM
I was on Historic Aerials dot com, to find out what the original Exit 107 configuration was before I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock.  To my dismay, I see no collection of aerial photography prior to 1983.  So being that stretch of freeway opened to traffic in 1977 or circa, the 1983 aerial shows pretty much what is today.

Does any one recall if there even was an interchange there at all? I seem to remember an at grade there where four lane US 301 defaulted into the four lane I-95 with two lane US 301 south of there being a wye split and NB US 301 having to stop and yield to the 301 SB to I-95 NB traffic and I-95 north yo US 301 traffic.

However the present day interchange was under construction at that time I remember. So that could have been a temporary set up while the ramps were either being done or redone. So all I know the exchange was there originally but got redone for whatever reason.

http://www.gribblenation.org/2020/08/local-sign-find-last-remnant-of.html

Goes into some of the detail you need.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on January 11, 2022, 05:17:18 PM
So I figured right. And because I-95 from Benson to Kenly was originally planned as a four lane bypass for US 301 the at grade made sense at the time.

I also remember the ends of the Fayetteville Bypass before it was completed. The south end curved to the Northwest and defaulted into the Business Loop I-95 and US 301 wye interchange at Hope Mills, while the north end at Eastover just had a seam less freeway from I-95 BL to I-95 as well. In fact in NCDOT erroneously signed the freeway part of I-95 BL and US 301 as I-95 and those traveling it thought that I-95 terminated at the Cape Fear River instead of wheee today’s interchange is in Eastover.

I also read, but vaguely remembered I-95 having a gap in Lumberton.   I saw in an internet article that the I-95 and US 301 concurrency through Lumberton was an arterial that was later upgraded to interstate standards. It was a pre interstate bypass of US 301 that simply got converted to interstate with businesses along the old 301 still kept alive.

There was another gap I remember, but it was a shorter one as NC at freeway ends used to have overhead flashers at barricades and somewhere else other than Gold Rock had a barricade at an exit somewhere else with the yellow warning flashers above the freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 11, 2022, 05:38:17 PM
I was on Historic Aerials dot com, to find out what the original Exit 107 configuration was before I-95 was completed between Kenly and Gold Rock.  To my dismay, I see no collection of aerial photography prior to 1983.  So being that stretch of freeway opened to traffic in 1977 or circa, the 1983 aerial shows pretty much what is today.

Does any one recall if there even was an interchange there at all? I seem to remember an at grade there where four lane US 301 defaulted into the four lane I-95 with two lane US 301 south of there being a wye split and NB US 301 having to stop and yield to the 301 SB to I-95 NB traffic and I-95 north yo US 301 traffic.

However the present day interchange was under construction at that time I remember. So that could have been a temporary set up while the ramps were either being done or redone. So all I know the exchange was there originally but got redone for whatever reason.

NCDOT Historical Aerial Imagery Index (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=91e02b76dce4470ebd7ec240ad202a04)

There's some imagery around Kenly from 1957, 1965, 1969, 1970, and 1975 (and later).

(https://services.arcgis.com/NuWFvHYDMVmmxMeM/arcgis/rest/services/DIL_1950_Low/FeatureServer/0/613/attachments/613)

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 11, 2022, 05:52:47 PM
So I figured right. And because I-95 from Benson to Kenly was originally planned as a four lane bypass for US 301 the at grade made sense at the time.

I also remember the ends of the Fayetteville Bypass before it was completed. The south end curved to the Northwest and defaulted into the Business Loop I-95 and US 301 wye interchange at Hope Mills, while the north end at Eastover just had a seam less freeway from I-95 BL to I-95 as well. In fact in NCDOT erroneously signed the freeway part of I-95 BL and US 301 as I-95 and those traveling it thought that I-95 terminated at the Cape Fear River instead of wheee today’s interchange is in Eastover.

I also read, but vaguely remembered I-95 having a gap in Lumberton.   I saw in an internet article that the I-95 and US 301 concurrency through Lumberton was an arterial that was later upgraded to interstate standards. It was a pre interstate bypass of US 301 that simply got converted to interstate with businesses along the old 301 still kept alive.

There was another gap I remember, but it was a shorter one as NC at freeway ends used to have overhead flashers at barricades and somewhere else other than Gold Rock had a barricade at an exit somewhere else with the yellow warning flashers above the freeway.

Covered that for you also - http://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/governor-hunt-cuts-ribbon-on-doomsday.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 12, 2022, 02:12:57 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

And NCDOT, in their apparent quest to make 3di directionality as unnecessarily confusing as possible, is changing the open portion of NC 540 from north/south to east/west, with eastbound going south toward US 1 and NC 55 and westbound going north toward I-540. This means that from I-40, there will be signs listing I-540 East and NC 540 East side-by-side, both going to completely different places. This is even worse than the soon-to-be split between I-74 West and US 74 West at Rockingham, since I-/NC 540 is for all intents and purposes a single route, unlike I-74 and US 74.

On the bright side, these plans include the conversion of NC 147 Toll to NC 885 Toll, plus some of the I-885-only signage for the Durham Freeway. In case anyone else was curious how they were going to sign that, there you go.

NC 540 East going south to US 1 and NC 55? That does not make sense. (even with NC 540 extension extending from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 interchange). Should have just keep the current one. Whoever thought of that... FAIL. It should be like this:

NC 540 going west from I-40 to NC 55 (designed west)
NC 540 going south from NC 55 to NC 55 (designed south)
Future NC 540 going east from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 (designed east)
Future NC 540 going north from I-40/US 70 to US 1 (designed north).

Easier than creating the E-W mess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 12, 2022, 02:33:27 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

And NCDOT, in their apparent quest to make 3di directionality as unnecessarily confusing as possible, is changing the open portion of NC 540 from north/south to east/west, with eastbound going south toward US 1 and NC 55 and westbound going north toward I-540. This means that from I-40, there will be signs listing I-540 East and NC 540 East side-by-side, both going to completely different places. This is even worse than the soon-to-be split between I-74 West and US 74 West at Rockingham, since I-/NC 540 is for all intents and purposes a single route, unlike I-74 and US 74.

On the bright side, these plans include the conversion of NC 147 Toll to NC 885 Toll, plus some of the I-885-only signage for the Durham Freeway. In case anyone else was curious how they were going to sign that, there you go.

NC 540 East going south to US 1 and NC 55? That does not make sense. (even with NC 540 extension extending from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 interchange). Should have just keep the current one. Whoever thought of that... FAIL. It should be like this:

NC 540 going west from I-40 to NC 55 (designed west)
NC 540 going south from NC 55 to NC 55 (designed south)
Future NC 540 going east from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 (designed east)
Future NC 540 going north from I-40/US 70 to US 1 (designed north).

Easier than creating the E-W mess.
Same. Also, NC 55 Bypass is not called NC 55 bypass anymore.  They should be removed from those signs. But I can't find the signage plans for those.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 12, 2022, 10:09:17 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

And NCDOT, in their apparent quest to make 3di directionality as unnecessarily confusing as possible, is changing the open portion of NC 540 from north/south to east/west, with eastbound going south toward US 1 and NC 55 and westbound going north toward I-540. This means that from I-40, there will be signs listing I-540 East and NC 540 East side-by-side, both going to completely different places. This is even worse than the soon-to-be split between I-74 West and US 74 West at Rockingham, since I-/NC 540 is for all intents and purposes a single route, unlike I-74 and US 74.

On the bright side, these plans include the conversion of NC 147 Toll to NC 885 Toll, plus some of the I-885-only signage for the Durham Freeway. In case anyone else was curious how they were going to sign that, there you go.

NC 540 East going south to US 1 and NC 55? That does not make sense. (even with NC 540 extension extending from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 interchange). Should have just keep the current one. Whoever thought of that... FAIL. It should be like this:

NC 540 going west from I-40 to NC 55 (designed west)
NC 540 going south from NC 55 to NC 55 (designed south)
Future NC 540 going east from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 (designed east)
Future NC 540 going north from I-40/US 70 to US 1 (designed north).

Easier than creating the E-W mess.
Same. Also, NC 55 Bypass is not called NC 55 bypass anymore.  They should be removed from those signs. But I can't find the signage plans for those.

Sadly, I think they are keeping the NC 55 Bypass on the signage plans if they're not on the diagrams.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 13, 2022, 06:08:14 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

And NCDOT, in their apparent quest to make 3di directionality as unnecessarily confusing as possible, is changing the open portion of NC 540 from north/south to east/west, with eastbound going south toward US 1 and NC 55 and westbound going north toward I-540. This means that from I-40, there will be signs listing I-540 East and NC 540 East side-by-side, both going to completely different places. This is even worse than the soon-to-be split between I-74 West and US 74 West at Rockingham, since I-/NC 540 is for all intents and purposes a single route, unlike I-74 and US 74.

On the bright side, these plans include the conversion of NC 147 Toll to NC 885 Toll, plus some of the I-885-only signage for the Durham Freeway. In case anyone else was curious how they were going to sign that, there you go.

NC 540 East going south to US 1 and NC 55? That does not make sense. (even with NC 540 extension extending from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 interchange). Should have just keep the current one. Whoever thought of that... FAIL. It should be like this:

NC 540 going west from I-40 to NC 55 (designed west)
NC 540 going south from NC 55 to NC 55 (designed south)
Future NC 540 going east from NC 55 to I-40/US 70 (designed east)
Future NC 540 going north from I-40/US 70 to US 1 (designed north).

Easier than creating the E-W mess.
Same. Also, NC 55 Bypass is not called NC 55 bypass anymore.  They should be removed from those signs. But I can't find the signage plans for those.

Sadly, I think they are keeping the NC 55 Bypass on the signage plans if they're not on the diagrams.
The contract has been posted to NCDOT's Construction Progress Report entries for Wake County, though no begin construction date is listed. The official completion date is 9/13/2023. This contract is planned as a follow-up to that of the East End Connector project which is supposed to put up all the I-885/Toll NC 885 signs along I-40, I-85, the Triangle Parkway and the Durham Freeway. Will this project's signs end up being placed first?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 14, 2022, 02:27:16 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

To be fair. the Cary Exit signs on I-40 Eastbound into Raleigh are from the late 80's, almost 40 years old.

Also there are plenty of sun-faded, unreadable signs that thankfully are soon to be replaced.

The overheads on I-40 in the fortify zone look sloppy, saggy, and below the preceding very high standards such as the Lake Wheeler Rd cantilever which is sagging and switches border color for the yellow part. I know that's the standard. but i think they accept the all white border which looks way better.

Do you think all of the out-of-staters now in NC are slowly not adhering to the high standards NCDOT is famous for?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 14, 2022, 02:33:21 PM
Does anyone know what dictates when concrete curbs are built on superstreets or 4-lame highays in general?

In rural Franklin County the new US401 section has curbs and drains on long stretches and then none on otherss.

I'm thinking that on inclines/declines the runoff might be too damaging to the soft shoulders so it requires more deliberate diversion.

Still it looks funny to see such a city-like piece of infrastructure on a rural highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 14, 2022, 04:47:48 PM
Looking at this document, All the signs on the western leg of the Triangle Expressway (and some on I-40 too) will be replaced and they are only about 10 years old. I think that's crazy. Signs should be replaced every 20 years or so in my opinion. Not sure if this is related to the renumbering of I-885 and NC-885 but they will be replaced. And existing North/South directionals on NC 540 will be altered to East/West and the logical reason could be that the eastern extension is opening up...

The Morrisville Parkway signs will remain untouched in this project though.

I'll break it down

Solid signs - will be replaced.

Gray signs - will be added.

Dotted signs - will remain untouched

Dotted signs with an X - will be removed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

Looking at page 191, the extra US-1, US-64 and US-70 will be removed from this  (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8850601,-78.8424917,3a,52.9y,155.91h,104.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYnKEqIuD5w0SYR8krZJCHw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)sign. Practically because it's either too big or it has too much information... so no I-87 shield surprisingly.

To be fair. the Cary Exit signs on I-40 Eastbound into Raleigh are from the late 80's, almost 40 years old.

Also there are plenty of sun-faded, unreadable signs that thankfully are soon to be replaced.

The overheads on I-40 in the fortify zone look sloppy, saggy, and below the preceding very high standards such as the Lake Wheeler Rd cantilever which is sagging and switches border color for the yellow part. I know that's the standard. but i think they accept the all white border which looks way better.

Do you think all of the out-of-staters now in NC are slowly not adhering to the high standards NCDOT is famous for?
1st line I'm sure you are referring to the ones between NC 147 (future I-885) and Wade Ave. Yes they are old but will be replaced in the near future I'm sure like when some interchange improvements are being done like of what happened at Aviation Parkway and what is currently being done to Airport Blvd right now.

I-440 in Northern Raleigh does need replacements...They are old and they DID realize it had to be done after the storm ripped off a sign.

If you are referring to the stretched out lowercase a then I agree.

And maybe.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on January 15, 2022, 09:59:52 AM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 15, 2022, 11:11:16 AM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.

Agreed!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on January 15, 2022, 11:15:00 AM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.

Agreed!

The same situation I found in Wichita, KS on US 54/ 400 approaching I-135 from the east.  A last minute guide that the exit is coming, meanwhile all local roads are warned in advance of their coming.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 15, 2022, 04:18:07 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 16, 2022, 10:24:15 AM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 16, 2022, 06:28:11 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
I'm not saying there's no problem; if people seems confused then maybe additional signage is needed. However, it's not true that there's only one advance sign for I-540. There is the sign at the Page Road exit, which is the 1/2 mile advance position. On the east side of Page Road, after the interchange, there's a giant sign over the right lane (which will exit to 540). This is about 1/4 mile from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/a7k5tRu4wzGmp53D9
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 16, 2022, 07:02:12 PM
I take a look at the new signage changes for 885 and 540 - specifically the East/East 540 change at Interstate 40 and the possible motorist confusion as a result.

"The changes aren't anything new - as this is the same part of the state that had different routes on and off the Beltline during the 1980s/90s, Inner/Outer Beltline for a time, I-540 was North/South for a bit and then went entirely East/West, NC 540 was signed as Interstate 540 and changed right before it opened, and let's not forget I-495 to I-87 along US 64 in Eastern Wake County.  Speaking of the Inner/Outer concept - why not go back to it for 540.  Yes, it didn't work for the Beltline, but it does work with I-485 in Charlotte."

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/01/route-and-directional-changes-coming-to.html


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 16, 2022, 08:32:38 PM
Can be funny but it's really not.

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/durham-county-news/tractor-trailer-falls-from-durham-overpass-with-trailer-still-leaning-on-bridge/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 16, 2022, 09:11:51 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
I'm not saying there's no problem; if people seems confused then maybe additional signage is needed. However, it's not true that there's only one advance sign for I-540. There is the sign at the Page Road exit, which is the 1/2 mile advance position. On the east side of Page Road, after the interchange, there's a giant sign over the right lane (which will exit to 540). This is about 1/4 mile from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/a7k5tRu4wzGmp53D9

I interpreted the one comment to mean there are additional signs in the plans, but there aren't any new signs planned in addition to the ones that are already there.

I believe the other comment is saying there needs to be a sign for I-540 more than 1/2 a mile before the interchange. It's not so much confusion as not enough warning. Someone in the left lane at the 1/2 mile sign at Page Rd. has about 30 seconds to make three lane changes in order to exit. Depending on traffic, that is easier said than done.

Why aren't the exit "list" signs like the ones found in the median of I-440 more common? That would be helpful on I-40 where there are several interchanges in close proximity.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 17, 2022, 12:24:13 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
I'm not saying there's no problem; if people seems confused then maybe additional signage is needed. However, it's not true that there's only one advance sign for I-540. There is the sign at the Page Road exit, which is the 1/2 mile advance position. On the east side of Page Road, after the interchange, there's a giant sign over the right lane (which will exit to 540). This is about 1/4 mile from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/a7k5tRu4wzGmp53D9

I interpreted the one comment to mean there are additional signs in the plans, but there aren't any new signs planned in addition to the ones that are already there.

I believe the other comment is saying there needs to be a sign for I-540 more than 1/2 a mile before the interchange. It's not so much confusion as not enough warning. Someone in the left lane at the 1/2 mile sign at Page Rd. has about 30 seconds to make three lane changes in order to exit. Depending on traffic, that is easier said than done.

Why aren't the exit "list" signs like the ones found in the median of I-440 more common? That would be helpful on I-40 where there are several interchanges in close proximity.


You should suggest that on NCDOT's website. They'll likely respond with info on why or why not that is being implemented.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 17, 2022, 06:22:52 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
I'm not saying there's no problem; if people seems confused then maybe additional signage is needed. However, it's not true that there's only one advance sign for I-540. There is the sign at the Page Road exit, which is the 1/2 mile advance position. On the east side of Page Road, after the interchange, there's a giant sign over the right lane (which will exit to 540). This is about 1/4 mile from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/a7k5tRu4wzGmp53D9

I interpreted the one comment to mean there are additional signs in the plans, but there aren't any new signs planned in addition to the ones that are already there.

I believe the other comment is saying there needs to be a sign for I-540 more than 1/2 a mile before the interchange. It's not so much confusion as not enough warning. Someone in the left lane at the 1/2 mile sign at Page Rd. has about 30 seconds to make three lane changes in order to exit. Depending on traffic, that is easier said than done.

Why aren't the exit "list" signs like the ones found in the median of I-440 more common? That would be helpful on I-40 where there are several interchanges in close proximity.
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

It's not easy to find a place for a list sign; it would need to be after the merge from Future I-885 but that puts it close to the Davis Drive exit. The series of closely spaced exits in Research Triangle Park really makes signage design a challenge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 06:36:50 PM
on the topic of signs in the Triangle, there really needs to be another advance sign for the 540 interchange on 40 Eastbound. Currently there is only one at the 1/2 mile advance position. I routinely see cars cutting across 2+ lanes to get onto 540. The single sign does not give enough notice of the upcoming interchange.
did you read the signage plans?

I don't see any additional signs on I-40 eastbound for I-540.
I'm not saying there's no problem; if people seems confused then maybe additional signage is needed. However, it's not true that there's only one advance sign for I-540. There is the sign at the Page Road exit, which is the 1/2 mile advance position. On the east side of Page Road, after the interchange, there's a giant sign over the right lane (which will exit to 540). This is about 1/4 mile from the exit.
https://goo.gl/maps/a7k5tRu4wzGmp53D9

I interpreted the one comment to mean there are additional signs in the plans, but there aren't any new signs planned in addition to the ones that are already there.

I believe the other comment is saying there needs to be a sign for I-540 more than 1/2 a mile before the interchange. It's not so much confusion as not enough warning. Someone in the left lane at the 1/2 mile sign at Page Rd. has about 30 seconds to make three lane changes in order to exit. Depending on traffic, that is easier said than done.

Why aren't the exit "list" signs like the ones found in the median of I-440 more common? That would be helpful on I-40 where there are several interchanges in close proximity.
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

It's not easy to find a place for a list sign; it would need to be after the merge from Future I-885 but that puts it close to the Davis Drive exit. The series of closely spaced exits in Research Triangle Park really makes signage design a challenge.
Although they have presented plans to fix the closely spaced exits.

https://nmcdn.io/e186d21f8c7946a19faed23c3da2f0da/8bfec28a290449a7b10eb1fee3a0e264/files/programs-studies/hot-spots/NC_55_Bypass/FINAL_I-40-540_CAMPO_Report_111417.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 17, 2022, 07:28:47 PM
Braiding the Davis Drive and Miami Boulevard ramps, as this report suggests, would be tremendous help in improving traffic in RTP. But I haven’t seen any evidence that NCDOT is going to act on this. Am I right?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 17, 2022, 07:36:26 PM
Braiding the Davis Drive and Miami Boulevard ramps, as this report suggests, would be tremendous help in improving traffic in RTP. But I haven’t seen any evidence that NCDOT is going to act on this. Am I right?
As of right now, no. But it could be part of the managed lanes project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 18, 2022, 07:45:37 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 19, 2022, 01:41:24 AM
Overhead signs must be no lower than 17 feet and it seems like the one with all the TO's (TO 70, TO 1, TO 64) violated that. So that's why they are removing all of those.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 19, 2022, 01:46:19 AM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 19, 2022, 01:51:39 AM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on January 19, 2022, 02:04:21 AM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

On I-85 in Charlotte, approaching I-77 from either direction, the first guide signage occurs at either 1 mile or 3/4 mile, and on northbound 85 the guide signs list US 21 first!

I think it’s an appropriate metaphor about how NCDOT feels about I-77 versus how they feel about I-85, as well as the mere existence of the I-77 Express Lanes and the horrible stretch b/w I-485 on the south end and I-277 Belk freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 19, 2022, 12:53:35 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

For the most part, interchanges are not signed in ahead of the previous interchange.  The first sign is typically on the same sign structure as the exit sign for the previous interchange.  For instance, the sign on I-40 east is on the same structure as the exit sign for Page Road.  I asked about providing more advanced warning, and the answer was that they thought that signing for an interchange ahead of a previous interchange would be confusing.  (Say, signing for I-540 at Miami Blvd might convince some drivers that they need to exit at Page Road.  That's the thought process; I don't necessarily agree with that in all locations.  But I'm not in Signing.)  It has nothing to do with the Durham Freeway on-ramp.  There's sufficient room to weave over from the left to the right in those ~2.5 miles.

The I-40/85 EB split in Hillsborough works better because there's a couple of miles between the previous interchange and that split.  Not so for the I-40/I-85Bus. interchange in Greensboro (the older split.  The newer split isn't signed in advance of the previous interchange either, IIRC.)

Virginia does sign some splits in advance of previous interchanges; one I'm familiar with is the I-95/I-295 split north of Richmond.  A sign informing drivers of that split is ~5 miles ahead and at least one interchange in advance.  I don't recall a similar sign in NC, although there's some information on the multiple exit signs in the median on, say, US 64 or I-440.

What I didn't care for is when they changed the lane configuration of the split a few years ago, they didn't provide a lot of advance warning that the left lane was now an exit-only lane.  Had to make a last second maneuver.  (Making a lane continuity change after ~40 years needs some signage/warning.  Some of us are set in our ways!.)



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 19, 2022, 01:27:13 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

For the most part, interchanges are not signed in ahead of the previous interchange.  The first sign is typically on the same sign structure as the exit sign for the previous interchange.  For instance, the sign on I-40 east is on the same structure as the exit sign for Page Road.  I asked about providing more advanced warning, and the answer was that they thought that signing for an interchange ahead of a previous interchange would be confusing.  (Say, signing for I-540 at Miami Blvd might convince some drivers that they need to exit at Page Road.  That's the thought process; I don't necessarily agree with that in all locations.  But I'm not in Signing.)  It has nothing to do with the Durham Freeway on-ramp.  There's sufficient room to weave over from the left to the right in those ~2.5 miles.


NC examples:
US 1 NB Sanford - https://goo.gl/maps/QovcS9wkQ1iumhyJ6 - there is a full interchange between here and US 421 Bus

I-95 NB Dunn - https://goo.gl/maps/yyTGrQzJNtbtFzkx9 - there used to be BGS that said 'second exit'; this one is being changed where Pope Rd and US 421/NC 55 will be on one BGS;
the I-95 SB direction also had this and the 'second exit' thing made it to early GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/3X4E8DgYng5xZ7Np6

I-26 EB in Hendersonville - https://goo.gl/maps/imcVqau8emZR62dQA
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 20, 2022, 08:57:56 AM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

For the most part, interchanges are not signed in ahead of the previous interchange.  The first sign is typically on the same sign structure as the exit sign for the previous interchange.  For instance, the sign on I-40 east is on the same structure as the exit sign for Page Road.  I asked about providing more advanced warning, and the answer was that they thought that signing for an interchange ahead of a previous interchange would be confusing.  (Say, signing for I-540 at Miami Blvd might convince some drivers that they need to exit at Page Road.  That's the thought process; I don't necessarily agree with that in all locations.  But I'm not in Signing.)  It has nothing to do with the Durham Freeway on-ramp.  There's sufficient room to weave over from the left to the right in those ~2.5 miles.


NC examples:
US 1 NB Sanford - https://goo.gl/maps/QovcS9wkQ1iumhyJ6 - there is a full interchange between here and US 421 Bus

I-95 NB Dunn - https://goo.gl/maps/yyTGrQzJNtbtFzkx9 - there used to be BGS that said 'second exit'; this one is being changed where Pope Rd and US 421/NC 55 will be on one BGS;
the I-95 SB direction also had this and the 'second exit' thing made it to early GMSV - https://goo.gl/maps/3X4E8DgYng5xZ7Np6

I-26 EB in Hendersonville - https://goo.gl/maps/imcVqau8emZR62dQA

I figured there'd be some exceptions (hence the "for the most part..")  I note all three are side mounted, and the last two didn't have exit numbers; for the I_95 one, I'm pretty sure those two exits are being combined (unless the plans changed again from the last time I saw them) so they'll be on the same overhead sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 20, 2022, 10:09:35 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

I meant to say I hope the "Y" shaped diagrammatic arrows were NOT removed upon adoption of the European "option" arrows were implemented.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 20, 2022, 10:12:41 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

On I-85 in Charlotte, approaching I-77 from either direction, the first guide signage occurs at either 1 mile or 3/4 mile, and on northbound 85 the guide signs list US 21 first!

I think it’s an appropriate metaphor about how NCDOT feels about I-77 versus how they feel about I-85, as well as the mere existence of the I-77 Express Lanes and the horrible stretch b/w I-485 on the south end and I-277 Belk freeway.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 20, 2022, 10:20:19 PM
Backing up another half mile from Page Road (that is, about one mile from the I-540 exit) we have the Miami Boulevard exit. There must be some way to get an I-540 advance notice on this signage: https://goo.gl/maps/fkw3qgGWi2kUYraE8.

The bigger problem here is that the Durham Freeway has a left-hand onramp prior to Miami Boulevard.  Now that you've pointed out the lack of advance signs for I-540.  I'm wondering if NCDOT has intentionally omitted the advance signage to discourage movements from the Durham Freeway to the northern leg of I-540 (now it's simply I-540, as the southern leg has long been reposted as NC-540).  It is typical in North Carolina to give a lot of advance notification of an upcoming major interchange, at least 2 miles for arterials and usually 5 miles for freeways.  One of the main issues is when too much traffic crosses from the far left lanes to the far right lanes too soon (or vice versa, like the move on the Capital Beltway from the Cabin John to I-270), all of the traffic flow models predict the need for a flyover.  And that is not always the best solution.

I've never seen any 5 mile advance notice of an upcoming interchange in NC. But the one I always think of when Eastbound I-85/I-40 split apart approaching the Triangle. There's something grandiose about that interchange because over the years I had several people from Atlanta call me up saying they thought of me while passing the Raleigh exit off I-85..

I hope the diagramatic arrows were removed when the European style split signs became the norm a few years back.

On I-85 in Charlotte, approaching I-77 from either direction, the first guide signage occurs at either 1 mile or 3/4 mile, and on northbound 85 the guide signs list US 21 first!

I think it’s an appropriate metaphor about how NCDOT feels about I-77 versus how they feel about I-85, as well as the mere existence of the I-77 Express Lanes and the horrible stretch b/w I-485 on the south end and I-277 Belk freeway.


No, I-77 isn't the ugly stepchild that's neglected.

It was the local (Albemarle office) NCDOT division's choice many years ago on whether to spend a huge amount of funding on completing I-485 as a full circle when using I-85 would have made it a loop like Raleigh's beltline uses I-40,

or using that funding to widen I-77 which is the #1 or #2 most heavily travelled freeway in the state.

They chose to use years and years of allocated funding on I-485. I-77 would have to wait for many years.

You have to remember they try to be fair with the funding and spread it thinly across the whole state. McCrory improved the way funding is divvyed out. Projects are now scored on how much benefit comes to the most people which steers more towards urban areas.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on January 21, 2022, 01:11:50 PM

No, I-77 isn't the ugly stepchild that's neglected.

Quite the opposite. For as long as I have been traveling on I-77, it seems that there is always some section under construction. I wondered if there was something in the state constitution that required this almost continuous work.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 21, 2022, 06:27:59 PM

No, I-77 isn't the ugly stepchild that's neglected.

Quite the opposite. For as long as I have been traveling on I-77, it seems that there is always some section under construction. I wondered if there was something in the state constitution that required this almost continuous work.


It does need more lanes though from teh SC line to at least where the HOV lanes begin. That will be a herculean task though involving land purchases and staging that will complicate and slow the rebuild. Probably $3-5 billion I would estimate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on January 21, 2022, 09:24:46 PM
I don't think they "hate" I-77. The issue is that 77 mostly just serves the Charlotte Metro while 85 serves all the major metros in the state and is by far the most important highway in the state overall. It was also cheaper and easier to expand 85 rather than 77. The part specifically from the SC border to I-277 in Uptown Charlotte will be a project in scale and cost that NCDOT has never done before.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 22, 2022, 11:31:45 AM
Ooo

https://wcti12.com/news/local/us-17-jacksonville-bypass-closed-due-to-icy-conditions
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 22, 2022, 07:29:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 06:20:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 07:45:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 23, 2022, 07:57:52 PM
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...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 23, 2022, 08:02:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 24, 2022, 08:18:43 AM
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.


 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 24, 2022, 08:41:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 24, 2022, 06:08:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 24, 2022, 09:09:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 24, 2022, 09:10:32 PM
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
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 25, 2022, 07:36:54 PM
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).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 25, 2022, 07:37:42 PM
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/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 26, 2022, 12:56:40 AM
Here's a conceptual design -

(https://i.ibb.co/FVBNPD3/I87I95.png)

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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 26, 2022, 09:32:59 AM
Here's a conceptual design -

(https://i.ibb.co/FVBNPD3/I87I95.png)

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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 26, 2022, 09:44:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 26, 2022, 10:02:47 AM
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.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 26, 2022, 06:05:06 PM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/56BtGbVZsdA3mkWS8) and I-85 SB (https://goo.gl/maps/wRwV4Be1tsorZNDy8)). 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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 27, 2022, 10:44:57 AM
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 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-01-27-hampstead-bypass-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 27, 2022, 12:03:34 PM
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 (https://goo.gl/maps/56BtGbVZsdA3mkWS8) and I-85 SB (https://goo.gl/maps/wRwV4Be1tsorZNDy8)). 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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 27, 2022, 06:20:02 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 27, 2022, 06:22:45 PM
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 (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?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on January 27, 2022, 06:38:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 10:02:38 AM
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
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 29, 2022, 10:12:28 AM
^ There's a disconnect somewhere.  NCDOT's webpage on the project (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/default.aspx) lists a 2025 begin, not 2023 as the local representative claims.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 10:21:52 AM
^ There's a disconnect somewhere.  NCDOT's webpage on the project (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/default.aspx) lists a 2025 begin, not 2023 as the local representative claims.
It probably has not been updated yet.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on January 29, 2022, 10:50:50 AM
Or the representative was given or giving bad info.

I'd think 2025 would be more realistic than 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on January 29, 2022, 11:29:54 AM
Or the representative was given or giving bad info.

I'd think 2025 would be more realistic than 2023.

It’s a design-build project, so likely it will be let in 2023 and construction starts in 2025.  (Don’t have access to the project schedule right now to check.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 29, 2022, 11:38:19 AM
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.
The project webpage does list it as the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, so the writers of the press release have an excuse:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

But why go to the effort of signing NC 417 temporarily along NC 140, US 17 and NC 210 after the first section of the Bypass is completed if you are only going to remove the designation when the entire project is finished? The last part of the project from NC 140 to NC 210 is not currently planned to start until late 2026, so if the route is to be US 17 Bypass, it will be awhile until it is signed that way, if at all.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on January 29, 2022, 12:47:46 PM
Good things about the Mid-Currituck Bridge, 60 MPH Speed Limit, this will be the first 2 lane road in NC with that high of a limit.  The only other Southeast State that has 60 on its 2 lanes is Florida.

I also like that the intersection with US 158 will be an interchange, great forward thinking by NCDOT on this one.  Good also on widening the north and southbound approaches on NC 12 from 2 to 4 lanes.

Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2022, 01:05:05 PM
Good things about the Mid-Currituck Bridge, 60 MPH Speed Limit, this will be the first 2 lane road in NC with that high of a limit.  The only other Southeast State that has 60 on its 2 lanes is Florida.
I highly doubt it will… more than likely, the article was confusing the “design speed”  with “speed limit” . The project would have a design speed of 60 mph and a posted speed limit of 55 mph.

State law does not permit anything higher than 55 mph on a two lane roadway.

Not that I necessarily agree, but that’s the reality. NC-168 / US-158 should largely have 65 mph rural sections, if speeds were realistic, but it’s only allowed at 55 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 29, 2022, 02:02:06 PM
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.
The project webpage does list it as the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, so the writers of the press release have an excuse:
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx)

But why go to the effort of signing NC 417 temporarily along NC 140, US 17 and NC 210 after the first section of the Bypass is completed if you are only going to remove the designation when the entire project is finished? The last part of the project from NC 140 to NC 210 is not currently planned to start until late 2026, so if the route is to be US 17 Bypass, it will be awhile until it is signed that way, if at all.

One ultimate outcome that would make some sense given the NC 417 initial routing would be to having NC 417 remain on the current NC 140 portion. 


The 2020-29 STIP has been updated as of Jan 2022 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf) and the mid-Currituck Bridge is shown with construction allocations starting FY 2024 which can mean late 2023.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 02:58:19 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Well, when looking at these  (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/preferred-alternative-maps.aspx)documents, they DO plan on building a second bridge when traffic volumes rise overtime.

And as far as a roundabout, you are already in the island so there isn't any room to put one, really. If they tried doing so, it would be expensive and would cause heavy impact and will sprawl strong opposition to the locals.

I can just say they will follow the same build pattern when building this bridge when they rebuild the Alligator River Bridge. The bridge will be replaced with a 2-lane structure and they'll make room for a future one when US-64 gets widened to 4 lanes from Columbia to Manns Harbor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 29, 2022, 03:23:48 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Well, when looking at these  (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/preferred-alternative-maps.aspx)documents, they DO plan on building a second bridge when traffic volumes rise overtime.

And as far as a roundabout, you are already in the island so there isn't any room to put one, really. If they tried doing so, it would be expensive and would cause heavy impact and will sprawl strong opposition to the locals.

I can just say they will follow the same build pattern when building this bridge when they rebuild the Alligator River Bridge. The bridge will be replaced with a 2-lane structure and they'll make room for a future one when US-64 gets widened to 4 lanes from Columbia to Manns Harbor.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.

The Alligator Bridge will be 4-lanes from the outset per documents  here (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/project-documents.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 03:32:04 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Well, when looking at these  (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/preferred-alternative-maps.aspx)documents, they DO plan on building a second bridge when traffic volumes rise overtime.

And as far as a roundabout, you are already in the island so there isn't any room to put one, really. If they tried doing so, it would be expensive and would cause heavy impact and will sprawl strong opposition to the locals.

I can just say they will follow the same build pattern when building this bridge when they rebuild the Alligator River Bridge. The bridge will be replaced with a 2-lane structure and they'll make room for a future one when US-64 gets widened to 4 lanes from Columbia to Manns Harbor.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
In one of the documents that I linked. You will see "FUTURE BRIDGE" in one of them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 29, 2022, 03:44:33 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.
Those bridges are irrelevant to anyone heading to the northern part of the Outer Banks. No one is going to drive 40+ miles / an hour out of the way just to avoid a 5-6 mile 2 lane section.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
Because the schematics show a future bridge location parallel to the initial one and has an ultimate 4 lane design.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on January 29, 2022, 04:02:39 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.
Those bridges are irrelevant to anyone heading to the northern part of the Outer Banks. No one is going to drive 40+ miles / an hour out of the way just to avoid a 5-6 mile 2 lane section.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
Because the schematics show a future bridge location parallel to the initial one and has an ultimate 4 lane design.

I went back and zoomed in a little further and finally see this.  Note to tolbs:  if someone says they don't see something, it is of zero help to reply that they are in the documents you link to (there were several) and give no further information.

A reason to build a 4-lane bridge from the outset could be that their own traffic study (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/2040-preferred-alternative-traffic-final.pdf) shows a 2-lane bridge will be LOS C on a summer weekday and LOS E on a summer weekend not very long after the bridge opens.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 06:35:30 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.
Those bridges are irrelevant to anyone heading to the northern part of the Outer Banks. No one is going to drive 40+ miles / an hour out of the way just to avoid a 5-6 mile 2 lane section.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
Because the schematics show a future bridge location parallel to the initial one and has an ultimate 4 lane design.
Note to tolbs:  if someone says they don't see something, it is of zero help to reply that they are in the documents you link to (there were several) and give no further information.
When you are on a phone, it can be difficult, otherwise I would have linked it and told you what page to scroll to.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on January 29, 2022, 07:37:00 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.
Those bridges are irrelevant to anyone heading to the northern part of the Outer Banks. No one is going to drive 40+ miles / an hour out of the way just to avoid a 5-6 mile 2 lane section.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
Because the schematics show a future bridge location parallel to the initial one and has an ultimate 4 lane design.
Note to tolbs:  if someone says they don't see something, it is of zero help to reply that they are in the documents you link to (there were several) and give no further information.
When you are on a phone, it can be difficult, otherwise I would have linked it and told you what page to scroll to.

Then, IMHO, wait till you get home to respond on the PC, tolbs.  This isn't a life or death situation. ;)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 09:44:01 PM
Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.
Those bridges are irrelevant to anyone heading to the northern part of the Outer Banks. No one is going to drive 40+ miles / an hour out of the way just to avoid a 5-6 mile 2 lane section.

Not sure how you're translating the mid-Currituck Bridge documents into there being a second bridge there at some later point.
Because the schematics show a future bridge location parallel to the initial one and has an ultimate 4 lane design.
Note to tolbs:  if someone says they don't see something, it is of zero help to reply that they are in the documents you link to (there were several) and give no further information.
When you are on a phone, it can be difficult, otherwise I would have linked it and told you what page to scroll to.

Then, IMHO, wait till you get home to respond on the PC, tolbs.  This isn't a life or death situation. ;)
Ok, I will do that
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 29, 2022, 10:16:03 PM
The Mid-Currituck bridge has a 6/18/2024 design-build let as of January 2022.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36%20MONTH%20DESIGN-BUILD%20LET%20LIST%20(JANUARY%202022%20-%20DECEMBER%202024).pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on January 29, 2022, 11:01:09 PM
The Mid-Currituck bridge has a 6/18/2024 design-build let as of January 2022.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/36%20MONTH%20DESIGN-BUILD%20LET%20LIST%20(JANUARY%202022%20-%20DECEMBER%202024).pdf
As of January 18. That article was from January 27 so it probably has been accelerated just a few days ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 01, 2022, 11:45:44 AM
HUGE EXPLOSION IN WINSTON-SALEM!!!!

What's with all the fires in this country lately? It pisses me off that these are happening...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/us/winston-salem-fertilizer-plant-fire/index.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/winston-salem-firefighters-on-north-cherry-street/38946210#
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on February 01, 2022, 01:58:53 PM
HUGE EXPLOSION IN WINSTON-SALEM!!!!

What's with all the fires in this country lately? It pisses me off that these are happening...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/us/winston-salem-fertilizer-plant-fire/index.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/winston-salem-firefighters-on-north-cherry-street/38946210#
The explosion hasn't happened yet.  As you have been cautioned before, read before posting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 01, 2022, 08:28:01 PM
HUGE EXPLOSION IN WINSTON-SALEM!!!!

What's with all the fires in this country lately? It pisses me off that these are happening...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/us/winston-salem-fertilizer-plant-fire/index.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/winston-salem-firefighters-on-north-cherry-street/38946210#
The explosion hasn't happened yet.  As you have been cautioned before, read before posting.

^^ this ^^

Tolbs, please read the articles before you post about them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 02, 2022, 03:31:36 AM
HUGE EXPLOSION IN WINSTON-SALEM!!!!

What's with all the fires in this country lately? It pisses me off that these are happening...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/us/winston-salem-fertilizer-plant-fire/index.html

https://www.wxii12.com/article/winston-salem-firefighters-on-north-cherry-street/38946210#
The explosion hasn't happened yet.  As you have been cautioned before, read before posting.

^^ this ^^

Tolbs, please read the articles before you post about them.
Will read before posting. Thanks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 02, 2022, 03:33:45 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40-nc42/Pages/final-design-maps.aspx

Some work has been revised on this project so expect this to take longer than expected. Jones Sausage Rd interchange has been revised to a diverging diamond.

Also the I-40 westbound flyover that goes over I-440 eastbound looks like it will hold 5 westbound lanes of I-40. I assume express lanes are coming there in the future?

Everything else remains the same though

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 02, 2022, 10:42:21 AM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".  It wasn't posted along the route as of this Monday morning, as I've been watching to see when the "Harriett Morehead Berry Highway" and "John Motley Morehead III Highway" signs would come down.  This is sad in many ways, as Harriett was perhaps the first female Roadgeek.  She was pioneer of the Good Roads movement in North Carolina, and was singly responsible for increasing membership in that state organization from from 252 members in 1918 to over 5,500 members in two years.

Anyhow, there is still the roadside Historical Marker for Harriett Morehead Berry at the corner of NC-86 and Whitfield Road, which is just north of Exit 266 from I-40.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on February 02, 2022, 11:41:49 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40-nc42/Pages/final-design-maps.aspx

Some work has been revised on this project so expect this to take longer than expected. Jones Sausage Rd interchange has been revised to a diverging diamond.

Also the I-40 westbound flyover that goes over I-440 eastbound looks like it will hold 5 westbound lanes of I-40. I assume express lanes are coming there in the future?

Everything else remains the same though

The DDI was added due to the Amazon warehouse being built just south of the interchange on Jones Sausage.  Uses the same bridge.

The WB flyover doesn't look that wide when I drive past it every day (it does appear to be finished, with what looks to be two lanes of asphalt there to shift traffic soon.)  But looks can be deceiving.  I know express lanes are planned in the future, but didn't think the bridge would be built to that width now (but designed to allow it in the future.)

The plans you linked to only showed two lanes going from I-40 EB at the 440 split, with a third lane being started on I-40 at the (then) project start.  I caught that about a year and a half ago, and made sure there were plans to have three lanes continue (the Rock Quarry on-ramp lane will be extended to become that third lane.  That was better than a 2-3 split from the existing four lanes.)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 02, 2022, 11:43:35 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i40-nc42/Pages/final-design-maps.aspx

Some work has been revised on this project so expect this to take longer than expected. Jones Sausage Rd interchange has been revised to a diverging diamond.

Also the I-40 westbound flyover that goes over I-440 eastbound looks like it will hold 5 westbound lanes of I-40. I assume express lanes are coming there in the future?

Everything else remains the same though

The DDI was added due to the Amazon warehouse being built just south of the interchange on Jones Sausage.  Uses the same bridge.
Yes, I did figure that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 02, 2022, 05:13:30 PM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".  It wasn't posted along the route as of this Monday morning, as I've been watching to see when the "Harriett Morehead Berry Highway" and "John Motley Morehead III Highway" signs would come down.  This is sad in many ways, as Harriett was perhaps the first female Roadgeek.  She was pioneer of the Good Roads movement in North Carolina, and was singly responsible for increasing membership in that state organization from from 252 members in 1918 to over 5,500 members in two years.

Anyhow, there is still the roadside Historical Marker for Harriett Morehead Berry at the corner of NC-86 and Whitfield Road, which is just north of Exit 266 from I-40.

Yes, passed that marker today.

Also, not sure how I feel about Roy and Dean getting the highway name.... coming from an NC State guy
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 02, 2022, 06:35:44 PM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".  It wasn't posted along the route as of this Monday morning, as I've been watching to see when the "Harriett Morehead Berry Highway" and "John Motley Morehead III Highway" signs would come down.  This is sad in many ways, as Harriett was perhaps the first female Roadgeek.  She was pioneer of the Good Roads movement in North Carolina, and was singly responsible for increasing membership in that state organization from from 252 members in 1918 to over 5,500 members in two years.

Anyhow, there is still the roadside Historical Marker for Harriett Morehead Berry at the corner of NC-86 and Whitfield Road, which is just north of Exit 266 from I-40.

Yes, passed that marker today.

Also, not sure how I feel about Roy and Dean getting the highway name.... coming from an NC State guy

Go Pack!  I forgot to mention that a couple of weeks ago, the traffic reporter on WPTF mentioned "No delays on 'The Dean' and 'The Roy'" when referring to those particular stretches of I-40.  I had been watching and the "Harriett Morehead Berry Highway" was still up, so I knew that he was jumping the gun.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on February 03, 2022, 09:25:40 AM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".

So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 03, 2022, 01:54:55 PM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".

So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.

You spelled Duke wrong. LOL. And I will not be surprised if I-85 through Durham turns into "Coach K Highway". But on a serious note, why are we giving names of highways... when the route numbers are already there. I hate things like that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on February 03, 2022, 02:06:12 PM
"No delays on 'The Dean'

How can anyone with a knowledge of basketball history say that with a straight face?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 03, 2022, 04:47:39 PM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".

So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.

Corridor K (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/corridor-k/Pages/default.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 03, 2022, 05:50:36 PM
"No delays on 'The Dean'

How can anyone with a knowledge of basketball history say that with a straight face?

Glad that somebody got it.  The Dean will be playing stall ball two or three days a week eastbound in the mornings, and most every night westbound.

One correction.  Had to go down further towards RTP today, and there is still a duplicate "John Motley Morehead III Highway" sign between Exit 273 (NC-54/Raleigh Road) and Exit 274 (NC-751/Jordan Lake) that had not been replaced with a Dean Smith sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 03, 2022, 05:56:33 PM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".

So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.

You spelled Duke wrong. LOL. And I will not be surprised if I-85 through Durham turns into "Coach K Highway". But on a serious note, why are we giving names of highways... when the route numbers are already there. I hate things like that.

Back in 1991 I-440 was named the Chris Benson Beltline. I suppose that is still its name, but in 30 years I have never heard anyone use the name in conversation or in news stories.

Fixed quote. (http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4000.0) - rmf67
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 03, 2022, 11:34:13 PM
Back in 1991 I-440 was named the Chris Benson Beltline. I suppose that is still its name, but in 30 years I have never heard anyone use the name in conversation or in news stories.

Probably because it was named the Cliff Benson Beltline.  ;-)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 04, 2022, 05:29:26 PM
Beginning Sunday, the Athens Drive bridge over I-440 will be closed for a year so that it can be replaced. This is part of the I-440 improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-04-athens-dr-bridge-i-440-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-04-athens-dr-bridge-i-440-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 04, 2022, 05:47:17 PM
Back in 1991 I-440 was named the Chris Benson Beltline. I suppose that is still its name, but in 30 years I have never heard anyone use the name in conversation or in news stories.

Probably because it was named the Cliff Benson Beltline.  ;-)
Sorry. But it kind of makes my point: no one knows the name.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 04, 2022, 05:59:38 PM
There will be nighttime lane closures next week, starting Tuesday night, on I40/85 so that the original Mebane-Oaks bridge over the freeway can be removed. After midnight only one lane will be open in each direction. Lanes should reopen by 6 am. This is part of the interchange improvement project at Exit 154.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 05, 2022, 09:23:04 AM
Back in 1991 I-440 was named the Chris Benson Beltline. I suppose that is still its name, but in 30 years I have never heard anyone use the name in conversation or in news stories.

Probably because it was named the Cliff Benson Beltline.  ;-)
Sorry. But it kind of makes my point: no one knows the name.

Heh, that it does.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 05, 2022, 09:53:57 AM
It's now official.  I-40 from Hillborough to the Durham County line is now posted as the "Roy Williams Highway" and from there to NC-147 (future I-885) is the "Dean Smith Highway".  It wasn't posted along the route as of this Monday morning, as I've been watching to see when the "Harriett Morehead Berry Highway" and "John Motley Morehead III Highway" signs would come down.  This is sad in many ways, as Harriett was perhaps the first female Roadgeek.  She was pioneer of the Good Roads movement in North Carolina, and was singly responsible for increasing membership in that state organization from from 252 members in 1918 to over 5,500 members in two years.

Anyhow, there is still the roadside Historical Marker for Harriett Morehead Berry at the corner of NC-86 and Whitfield Road, which is just north of Exit 266 from I-40.

Yes, passed that marker today.

Also, not sure how I feel about Roy and Dean getting the highway name.... coming from an NC State guy

Fortify zone could be the Jimmy V section, but it's already the Tom Bradshaw Fwy.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 05, 2022, 12:30:39 PM
Back in 1991 I-440 was named the Chris Benson Beltline. I suppose that is still its name, but in 30 years I have never heard anyone use the name in conversation or in news stories.

Probably because it was named the Cliff Benson Beltline.  ;-)
Sorry. But it kind of makes my point: no one knows the name.

I knew the name - Cliff Benson founded Carolina Builders where I worked for 11 years.  At the Yonkers Road store, they had a replica of the sign honoring him. He also was a former Transportation Secretary.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 06, 2022, 04:56:32 AM
Finally...... This is coming. The 5th street improvements is supposed to start around the same time as this project is. Evans St going to 10th (which should be extended to 14th) needs it as well. Makes our town less dull looking! I can't wait to see those black light poles!

https://www.reflector.com/news/local/ncdot-plans-may-start-to-dickinson-avenue-improvements/article_ec52a8fa-3b20-598d-9019-fae345b32510.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 06, 2022, 12:53:25 PM
This has been updated, and now the Mid-Currituck bridge has been pushed back indefinitely. I have to assume it's unfunded now. Unless they are planning on when it will actually start but idk.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Pages/default.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 06, 2022, 05:56:49 PM
What is up with the gas tax component in NC?

South Carolina and Georgia have higher priced gas per gallon.

Neither of those states's DOTs maintain all roads including county roads like NC does and historically NC's gas tax was the highest due to over 80,000 miles of roads under their responsibility.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 06, 2022, 09:14:12 PM
What is up with the gas tax component in NC?

South Carolina and Georgia have higher priced gas per gallon.

Neither of those states's DOTs maintain all roads including county roads like NC does and historically NC's gas tax was the highest due to over 80,000 miles of roads under their responsibility.

Actually SC does maintain its secondary system.  They are in the midst of a slow modest gas tax increase over multiple years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on February 07, 2022, 11:55:40 AM
So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.
You spelled Duke wrong.

No, dook is how those who don't worship the coach and the basketball team properly spell it. It is a long-standing tradition inside and outside the ACC.

Bruce in the Home of the Hokies
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on February 07, 2022, 11:58:50 AM
So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.
You spelled Duke wrong.

No, dook is how those who don't worship the coach and the basketball team properly spell it. It is a long-standing tradition inside and outside the ACC.

Bruce in the Home of the Hokies

Just jealous, I guess.  Certainly better than being a Turkey.  (Excuse me, Gobbler.)

(Probably going to be censored by the moderator for going off topic. :-) )
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 07, 2022, 03:38:15 PM
What is up with the gas tax component in NC?

South Carolina and Georgia have higher priced gas per gallon.

Neither of those states's DOTs maintain all roads including county roads like NC does and historically NC's gas tax was the highest due to over 80,000 miles of roads under their responsibility.

Actually SC does maintain its secondary system.  They are in the midst of a slow modest gas tax increase over multiple years.

OK, but I wish someone could find out if the gas tax is pegged to inflation or if it's capped (temporarily) as a gift to those struggling.

SC did good by raising its tax because I-85 is being partially rebuilt and it's an important industrial corridor worth billions to Georgia and the Caroiinas.

SC's secondary roads are not built to high standards. The grading isn't gentle, there are often no shoulders and sometime they resemble privately-owned roads in the rural areas.

Florida seems to require the very highest standards in terms of water drainage, culverts, and the adjunct infrastructure. NC is somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 07, 2022, 04:08:22 PM
When talking about I-85, I assume you mean concrete is less fuel-consuming than asphalt is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hbelkins on February 08, 2022, 11:12:53 AM
So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.
You spelled Duke wrong.

No, dook is how those who don't worship the coach and the basketball team properly spell it. It is a long-standing tradition inside and outside the ACC.

Bruce in the Home of the Hokies

Oft-used phrase around these parts: "You can't spell dUKe without UK."

Oft-seen T-shirt and bumper sticker around these parts, 30 years later: "I Still Hate Laettner."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on February 08, 2022, 02:45:38 PM
So which road will be paved with gold to become the "Coach K Superhighway"? You know dook has to do it better.
You spelled Duke wrong.

No, dook is how those who don't worship the coach and the basketball team properly spell it. It is a long-standing tradition inside and outside the ACC.

Bruce in the Home of the Hokies

Oft-used phrase around these parts: "You can't spell dUKe without UK."

Oft-seen T-shirt and bumper sticker around these parts, 30 years later: "I Still Hate Laettner."

And we have the "We Still Love Laettner" shirts around here.

Driving back to Durham after THAT game, we stopped at the service area in either Delaware or Maryland.  On my way in, a young lady was coming out wearing a shirt that showed "uk" under her jacket.  I said hi, she growled, I realized there wasn't a D and an e on either end of that shirt covered by her jacket.  Pantone 287 (Duke) and Pantone 288 (UK) aren't very different!

(See, mentioning the service area on I-95 brings it back to a highway discussion!  I'll stop now.  :cool: )
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2022, 05:13:30 PM
I think it would be hilarious if some highway in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area was named after Christian Laettner or Michael Jordan. Maybe the portion of Interstate 40 between Interstate 85 and the Wade Avenue freeway could become the Michael Jordan Freeway or the Christian Laettner Freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 08, 2022, 05:56:22 PM
I think it would be hilarious if some highway in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area was named after Christian Laettner or Michael Jordan. Maybe the portion of Interstate 40 between Interstate 85 and the Wade Avenue freeway could become the Michael Jordan Freeway or the Christian Laettner Freeway.
I-40 in New Hanover County (Wilmington) is already the Michael Jordan Freeway. Of course, MJ grew up i Wilmington. Laettner is from New York; his connection to NC isn't anywhere near as deep as Jordan's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 08, 2022, 06:08:37 PM
I wasn't aware of that. Also, I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 40 between US 15/501 and NC 54 was named after the late UNC basketball coach Dean Smith last year. I think the name should have gone all the way from 85 to Wade Avenue.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 09, 2022, 08:41:50 AM
I think it would be hilarious if some highway in the Raleigh-Durham metropolitan area was named after Christian Laettner or Michael Jordan. Maybe the portion of Interstate 40 between Interstate 85 and the Wade Avenue freeway could become the Michael Jordan Freeway or the Christian Laettner Freeway.

Nah, MJ’s got a Deal for you at his Nissan Dealership in Durham. Hey! Oh!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 10:04:04 AM
When looking at this, they are removing I-85 business? I support this decision as it's not really needed here anyway.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 09, 2022, 10:56:18 AM
When looking at this, they are removing I-85 business? I support this decision as it's not really needed here anyway.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

My understanding is that this was in the works for a while, but I cannot remember if it was approved by AASHTO or not (unlike the US 70 relocation approved in Fall 2019).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 09, 2022, 11:13:04 AM
I wasn't aware of that. Also, I saw on Wikipedia that Interstate 40 between US 15/501 and NC 54 was named after the late UNC basketball coach Dean Smith last year. I think the name should have gone all the way from 85 to Wade Avenue.

There is already a huge controversy here about NCDOT-supplied UNC promotional signage on I-40 between Raleigh and Durham.  The signs said "North Carolina Tar Heels//2017 College Basketball//Men's National Championship".  For the westbound lanes, one of the original signs was installed just two miles from PNC Arena, home of North Carolina State Wolfpack basketball.  There was an immediate appeal from NC State fans to remove the sign, and somebody stole the sign in mid-February 2018.  NCDOT replaced the sign, which was relocated 2 miles further west.

If that weren't bad enough, this same signage was a controversy in Charlotte at the same time.  NCDOT was authorized to install eight (8) of these signs, including one at each end of I-85 as you enter the state.  However, the one for I-85 northbound ended up somewhere in Charlotte proper, invoking the ire of UNC Charlotte fans.  In this case, NCDOT relocated the sign to the south end of I-77 as you enter the state, far enough beyond the Charlotte city limits to avoid any more fuss (yet still deep in UNCC 49ers territory).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 09, 2022, 12:28:07 PM
When looking at this, they are removing I-85 business? I support this decision as it's not really needed here anyway.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

My understanding is that this was in the works for a while, but I cannot remember if it was approved by AASHTO or not (unlike the US 70 relocation approved in Fall 2019).

NCDOT approved this in Oct 2018 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31B.pdf).  They should also be removing the US 70 shields.

The signing plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/02-15-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Guilford%20U-5896,%20B-5353/U-5896/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for US 29 at Main St (old US 311) high Point remove both the I-85 Bus and US 70 shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 12:55:53 PM
When looking at this, they are removing I-85 business? I support this decision as it's not really needed here anyway.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

My understanding is that this was in the works for a while, but I cannot remember if it was approved by AASHTO or not (unlike the US 70 relocation approved in Fall 2019).

NCDOT approved this in Oct 2018 (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31B.pdf).  They should also be removing the US 70 shields.

The signing plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/02-15-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Guilford%20U-5896,%20B-5353/U-5896/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf) for US 29 at Main St (old US 311) high Point remove both the I-85 Bus and US 70 shields.
See page 17 of where US-70 will be relocated. I'm glad to see that US highways are being moved off freeways!

https://www.highpointnc.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_06252019-304

And with I-85 business disappearing entirely, then that leaves only US-29.

There will be only one interstate business route left and that would be I-95 business in Fayetteville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 09, 2022, 03:40:17 PM
The Hwy 11 Bypass has imagery finally!!!

https://goo.gl/maps/Rp6ooLkL6AXuREDs7
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 09, 2022, 11:28:00 PM
The Hwy 11 Bypass has imagery finally!!!

https://goo.gl/maps/Rp6ooLkL6AXuREDs7
That US 264 West exit sign will need to be changed to I-587 soon (hopefully).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 10, 2022, 02:43:09 PM
I have not heard anything about the status of the NC 119 Mebane Bypass in a while, but there is other Mebane construction going on at I-40/I-85 (https://alamancenews.com/night-lane-closures-around-mebane-oaks-road-construction/). (quoted below as it is behind a paywall)

Quote
Night lane closures around Mebane Oaks Road construction this week

ALAMANCE NEWS STAFF
FEBRUARY 7, 2022

Overnight lane closures along Interstate 85/40 are planned for Tuesday through Thursday night this week as part of the ongoing Mebane Oaks Road interchange improvements project, according to an announcement from the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

To safely remove portions of the Mebane Oaks Road bridge over I-85/40, crews plan to install phased lane closures on the interstate.

Beginning at 8:00 p.m. each night, Tuesday through Thursday, one of the four lanes in each direction will be closed. A second lane will close at 10:00 p.m. and a third at midnight, placing traffic in a single lane in each direction. The closures are set to be removed by 6:00 a.m. the following mornings.

For short periods of time during this work, DOT says, the interstate will be closed entirely while crews remove heavy material that would make traveling below unsafe.

During those times when I-85/40 is entirely closed, DOT says drivers will be detoured to take the Mebane Oaks Road exit and continue straight to follow the ramp back onto the interstate on the other side of the overpass bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 10, 2022, 04:43:49 PM
I have not heard anything about the status of the NC 119 Mebane Bypass in a while, but there is other Mebane construction going on at I-40/I-85 (https://alamancenews.com/night-lane-closures-around-mebane-oaks-road-construction/). (quoted below as it is behind a paywall)

Quote
Night lane closures around Mebane Oaks Road construction this week

ALAMANCE NEWS STAFF
FEBRUARY 7, 2022

Overnight lane closures along Interstate 85/40 are planned for Tuesday through Thursday night this week as part of the ongoing Mebane Oaks Road interchange improvements project, according to an announcement from the North Carolina Department of Transportation.

To safely remove portions of the Mebane Oaks Road bridge over I-85/40, crews plan to install phased lane closures on the interstate.

Beginning at 8:00 p.m. each night, Tuesday through Thursday, one of the four lanes in each direction will be closed. A second lane will close at 10:00 p.m. and a third at midnight, placing traffic in a single lane in each direction. The closures are set to be removed by 6:00 a.m. the following mornings.

For short periods of time during this work, DOT says, the interstate will be closed entirely while crews remove heavy material that would make traveling below unsafe.

During those times when I-85/40 is entirely closed, DOT says drivers will be detoured to take the Mebane Oaks Road exit and continue straight to follow the ramp back onto the interstate on the other side of the overpass bridge.

Wdcrft63 reported this about a week ago in Reply #4685 upstream.  I'm there almost every week and have been watching construction but still didn't realize that NCDOT was that far along with the western half of the new bridge structure.  We were there yesterday, and the old superstructure is completely gone there is a nice transition to the new structure.  But unlike most trips that way, we turned right and went north instead of south across the new bridge.  For those unfamiliar, Exit 154 (Mebane-Oaks Road) is the busy exit with the Tanger Outlets in the northeast quadrant and Walmart in the southwest quadrant.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:26:18 PM
When you have idiots trying to rush and drive so aggressively...

https://myfox8.com/news/north-carolina/piedmont-triad/watch-wild-video-shows-apparent-road-rage-chase-along-busy-highway-in-guilford-county/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 11, 2022, 01:41:43 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the Greenville Southwest Bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 11, 2022, 01:44:21 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the Greenville Southwest Bypass.
Yes, and I'm glad it's got that part covered. Well, not all of it, I'd say half.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex on February 11, 2022, 11:19:03 PM
Google Streetview is now showing the Greenville Southwest Bypass.
Yes, and I'm glad it's got that part covered. Well, not all of it, I'd say half.

Why do you need them to cover it? Aren't you local and can just see it for yourself?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 12, 2022, 06:26:52 AM
Google Streetview is now showing the Greenville Southwest Bypass.
Yes, and I'm glad it's got that part covered. Well, not all of it, I'd say half.

Why do you need them to cover it? Aren't you local and can just see it for yourself?
Yes I can but it's not like I go out on a daily basis lol
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on February 12, 2022, 07:39:40 PM
Locally in and around Fuquay-Varina, signs saying "no" to a US-401 bypass have started appearing. No one can say it isn't needed though, the whole area is a mess of traffic. It still amazes me that the NC-42/55 split on the east end of town still doesn't have any sort of traffic light at it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on February 13, 2022, 10:37:10 AM
Locally in and around Fuquay-Varina, signs saying "no" to a US-401 bypass have started appearing. No one can say it isn't needed though, the whole area is a mess of traffic. It still amazes me that the NC-42/55 split on the east end of town still doesn't have any sort of traffic light at it.

What is their goal?  Do they just want all of the routes thrown around on Judd Pkwy?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 13, 2022, 05:39:45 PM
Locally in and around Fuquay-Varina, signs saying "no" to a US-401 bypass have started appearing. No one can say it isn't needed though, the whole area is a mess of traffic. It still amazes me that the NC-42/55 split on the east end of town still doesn't have any sort of traffic light at it.
What is their goal?  Do they just want all of the routes thrown around on Judd Pkwy?

Farmers along the route are against it.
https://abc11.com/401-bypass-fuquay-varina-route-us/11017761/



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 13, 2022, 07:37:29 PM
Locally in and around Fuquay-Varina, signs saying "no" to a US-401 bypass have started appearing. No one can say it isn't needed though, the whole area is a mess of traffic. It still amazes me that the NC-42/55 split on the east end of town still doesn't have any sort of traffic light at it.
What is their goal?  Do they just want all of the routes thrown around on Judd Pkwy?

Farmers along the route are against it.
https://abc11.com/401-bypass-fuquay-varina-route-us/11017761/





Are there any other alternative routes that could be more acceptable to these landowners? Say like along property lines?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 13, 2022, 08:51:31 PM
AASHTO finally uploaded the Fall 2021 Meeting Report and here was all that was listed for North Carolina (most of which you all know):
Guess what Interstate was not on the list.  :-/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 13, 2022, 09:08:24 PM
Guess what Interstate was not on the list.  :-/
I-587?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 13, 2022, 09:16:14 PM
Guess what Interstate was not on the list.  :-/
I-587?

No, that's already approved from an earlier meeting. The one in Durham.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 13, 2022, 09:25:10 PM
Guess what Interstate was not on the list.  :-/
I-587?

No, that's already approved from an earlier meeting. The one in Durham.
Ah. So I-885. New signs are clearly already up for that unless that's what's holding the east end connector but that's just my guess.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2022, 09:27:57 PM
AASHTO finally uploaded the Fall 2021 Meeting Report and here was all that was listed for North Carolina (most of which you all know):
  • Establishment of I-42, 10 miles from I-40 to US 70 Bus.
  • Establishment of I-42, 21 miles along US 70 Bypass in Wayne County.
Interesting to see that two segments of I-42 will be signed… as far as I was aware, it was only the Goldsboro Bypass part, not the Clayton as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 13, 2022, 09:29:55 PM
AASHTO finally uploaded the Fall 2021 Meeting Report and here was all that was listed for North Carolina (most of which you all know):
  • Establishment of I-42, 10 miles from I-40 to US 70 Bus.
  • Establishment of I-42, 21 miles along US 70 Bypass in Wayne County.
Interesting to see that two segments of I-42 will be signed… as far as I was aware, it was only the Goldsboro Bypass part, not the Clayton as well.
I'd also be interested if they also sign I-42 on the freeway part from Dover to New Bern and on the Havelock bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 13, 2022, 09:33:05 PM
AASHTO finally uploaded the Fall 2021 Meeting Report and here was all that was listed for North Carolina (most of which you all know):
  • Establishment of I-42, 10 miles from I-40 to US 70 Bus.
  • Establishment of I-42, 21 miles along US 70 Bypass in Wayne County.
Interesting to see that two segments of I-42 will be signed… as far as I was aware, it was only the Goldsboro Bypass part, not the Clayton as well.
I'd also be interested if they also sign I-42 on the freeway part from Dover to New Bern and on the Havelock bypass.
Those segments would be ineligible to be signed given they do not connect to another interstate highway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 13, 2022, 09:35:30 PM
AASHTO finally uploaded the Fall 2021 Meeting Report and here was all that was listed for North Carolina (most of which you all know):
  • Establishment of I-42, 10 miles from I-40 to US 70 Bus.
  • Establishment of I-42, 21 miles along US 70 Bypass in Wayne County.
Interesting to see that two segments of I-42 will be signed… as far as I was aware, it was only the Goldsboro Bypass part, not the Clayton as well.
I'd also be interested if they also sign I-42 on the freeway part from Dover to New Bern and on the Havelock bypass.
Those segments would be ineligible to be signed given they do not connect to another interstate highway.
makes sense now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 14, 2022, 07:46:38 AM
There hasn't been a press release from NCDOT, but the northern section of the U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Project%20Breakdown%20Maps/R-2233.pdf) (R-2233BB) was let in December, with construction scheduled to start this month. The next section isn't scheduled to begin until summer 2027.

Public meeting map sheet 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-2.pdf) (from 2011, outdated project breaks and other minor design changes)
Public meeting map sheet 3 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-3.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Voyager75 on February 14, 2022, 11:34:14 AM
Wanted to chime in from Alabama and say the North Carolina Interstate soap opera keeps me well entertained. I know more about the state now from looking at maps of the hundreds of new Interstates and re-numberings of Interstates before they’re even fully built. All we have down here to talk about is the Montgomery to Meridian Interstate 85/14/new 20 alignment, the new I-10 Mobile Bay bridge and the possibility of US 231 becoming a new I-10 spur for Dothan.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 14, 2022, 03:04:00 PM
Which Interstate "soap opera" is more entertaining? Texas's or North Carolina's?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 14, 2022, 04:44:33 PM
There hasn't been a press release from NCDOT, but the northern section of the U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/Project%20Breakdown%20Maps/R-2233.pdf) (R-2233BB) was let in December, with construction scheduled to start this month. The next section isn't scheduled to begin until summer 2027.

Public meeting map sheet 2 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-2.pdf) (from 2011, outdated project breaks and other minor design changes)
Public meeting map sheet 3 (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/r2233b-2011-11-15-map-3.pdf)

This is, in reality the section that needs the most improvement.  Most SB through traffic takes 221 s to 64e to Bus 74 s.  This will aide this movement and bypass a very heavily enforced speed trap on 221 s.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 15, 2022, 01:10:47 PM
This  (https://goo.gl/maps/V7M377wkqHuGG1258)bridge will be replaced in just a few months.

I-40 at Parker Padgett Rd in McDowell County

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/03-15-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Mcdowell%20BR-0033%20C204672/Standard%20PDF%20Files/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Voyager75 on February 15, 2022, 01:21:38 PM
Which Interstate "soap opera" is more entertaining? Texas's or North Carolina's?

North Carolina for sure. And I meant soap opera in the sense of the amount of storylines NC has, not necessarily in the drama dept. Although the I-885 railroad bridge in Durham does seem to be evil mother holding I-85’s child down…
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 16, 2022, 03:21:26 PM
Just a note from the post I made here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13255.400) (see post #414).

New NC-540 signs and NC-147 being changed to NC-885 will not go up until the East End Connector is completed.

This last line states what will be done.

Quote
​Once complete, N.C. 147 will begin at the connector and go north through Durham to I-85. Existing Toll N.C. 147, which goes from I-40 south to Toll N.C. 540, will also change to Toll N.C. 885.


Here's the link if you didn't see the new signage plans: https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/10-13-2021/DE00325%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf

The other for the NC-147 re-numbering partially: https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/Division%205%20Letting/01-13-2021/DE00310%20Combined%20Plan%20Sheets.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Kulerage on February 16, 2022, 04:11:05 PM
Wanted to chime in from Alabama and say the North Carolina Interstate soap opera keeps me well entertained. I know more about the state now from looking at maps of the hundreds of new Interstates and re-numberings of Interstates before they’re even fully built. All we have down here to talk about is the Montgomery to Meridian Interstate 85/14/new 20 alignment, the new I-10 Mobile Bay bridge and the possibility of US 231 becoming a new I-10 spur for Dothan.
Tell me about it. It's honestly hard to keep up with at times.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 17, 2022, 08:39:15 AM
Which Interstate "soap opera" is more entertaining? Texas's or North Carolina's?

North Carolina for sure. And I meant soap opera in the sense of the amount of storylines NC has, not necessarily in the drama dept. Although the I-885 railroad bridge in Durham does seem to be evil mother holding I-85’s child down…

Heh, a railroad bridge in the way of 885 is nothing compared to the delays, funding drama, political bickering when 485 was being built.

One of my personal favorites - a lack of traffic signals delayed opening part of the northwest corner of 485.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2008/11/new-soap-opera-as-interstate-485-gets.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on February 17, 2022, 07:41:56 PM
Side note: What is the deal with those NC Core signs? Whenever I drove past them over Thanksgiving, I feel like I spend more time than I should have trying to understand what it meant. I understand the purpose of those signs are more advertising than informational, which I don't like a-la those blue signs in New York.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 18, 2022, 11:32:08 AM
crossposted to the North Carolina thread and the I-685 North Carolina thread:

Side note: What is the deal with those NC Core signs? Whenever I drove past them over Thanksgiving, I feel like I spend more time than I should have trying to understand what it meant. I understand the purpose of those signs are more advertising than informational, which I don't like a-la those blue signs in New York.

It's actually "NC Carolina Core", and it is the new commercial development zone entity in Central Carolina between I-77 and I-95 that is routed along I-40 from Statesville to Greensboro, over the southwest part of the Greensboro Urban Loop (I-73 and a tad of new I-85) and US-421 (future I-685).  This connects Winston-Salem to the new Greensboro megasites by bypassing Greensboro proper, which has some huge political undertones that haven't made the press yet.  I haven't seen any of these signs yet, but it wouldn't surprise me that they are cluttered with info.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 18, 2022, 11:35:38 AM
crossposted to the North Carolina thread and the I-685 North Carolina thread:

Side note: What is the deal with those NC Core signs? Whenever I drove past them over Thanksgiving, I feel like I spend more time than I should have trying to understand what it meant. I understand the purpose of those signs are more advertising than informational, which I don't like a-la those blue signs in New York.

It's actually "NC Carolina Core", and it is the new commercial development zone entity in Central Carolina between I-77 and I-95 that is routed along I-40 from Statesville to Greensboro, over the southwest part of the Greensboro Urban Loop (I-73 and a tad of new I-85) and US-421 (future I-685).  This connects Winston-Salem to the new Greensboro megasites by bypassing Greensboro proper, which has some huge political undertones that haven't made the press yet.  I haven't seen any of these signs yet, but it wouldn't surprise me that they are cluttered with info.
I-40 is for sure a "busy" highway, and I'd like to see how much traffic will get relieved on that although they are already planning for express lanes on I-40 even with the 540 beltways being done, but given the Triangle's growth, it could be a game changer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2022, 11:57:57 AM
You’ve mentioned express lanes for the Raleigh area several times… asides from a feasibility study that was done some years ago though… are these actually actively planned?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 18, 2022, 12:16:00 PM
You’ve mentioned express lanes for the Raleigh area several times… asides from a feasibility study that was done some years ago though… are these actually actively planned?
Yes, I-6006 is I-40 from NC-54 (Raleigh Rd) to Wade Ave which would convert it into a managed freeway with ramp metering. Construction is scheduled for 2029.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 18, 2022, 01:37:55 PM
You’ve mentioned express lanes for the Raleigh area several times… asides from a feasibility study that was done some years ago though… are these actually actively planned?
Yes, I-6006 is I-40 from NC-54 (Raleigh Rd) to Wade Ave which would convert it into a managed freeway with ramp metering. Construction is scheduled for 2029.
Not the same thing as Express Lanes.

From what I see, that project will install ramp metering and other ITS improvements along the interstate. Nothing about adding lanes, let alone managed lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 18, 2022, 01:50:07 PM
How extensive is ramp metering used in North Carolina? Here in Wisconsin, ramp meters are used extensively in the Milwaukee and Waukesha metropolitan areas, and there are some on the Beltline here in Madison. I'm not sure if ramp meters are used in other parts of the state though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on February 18, 2022, 02:42:19 PM
How extensive is ramp metering used in North Carolina? Here in Wisconsin, ramp meters are used extensively in the Milwaukee and Waukesha metropolitan areas, and there are some on the Beltline here in Madison. I'm not sure if ramp meters are used in other parts of the state though.

Almost non-existent

I have seen it installed only at a few entrance ramps along I-540, and even then they aren't used often. Before pandemic I would see them used in the morning rush hour.

I haven't seen or heard of any ramp meters in Charlotte, Durham, Wilmington, Asheville, or any other major city with heavy freeway traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 18, 2022, 03:50:10 PM
How extensive is ramp metering used in North Carolina? Here in Wisconsin, ramp meters are used extensively in the Milwaukee and Waukesha metropolitan areas, and there are some on the Beltline here in Madison. I'm not sure if ramp meters are used in other parts of the state though.

Almost non-existent

I have seen it installed only at a few entrance ramps along I-540, and even then they aren't used often. Before pandemic I would see them used in the morning rush hour.

I haven't seen or heard of any ramp meters in Charlotte, Durham, Wilmington, Asheville, or any other major city with heavy freeway traffic.

Of course people were skeptical at first, and then saw immediate benefits from the few on I-540 pre-pandemic.

Of course, an adequate road system wouldn't need them extensively, but I predict they'll be needed more and more in the future.

They are absolutely essential in metro Atlanta and are used extensively at ramps to keep the freeways flowing as best as possible.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 21, 2022, 04:25:19 PM
Completely random, but I think NCDOT should request a new U.S. Route to replace nearly all of NC 24. It would be a good case, route from biggest city to port city, connecting military installations along the way; a lot of the route is already widen to four-lane. It would begin at US 74 going east, with a routing along NC 210 through Fayetteville, and end at US 70 at Morehead City. Leftover segment of NC 24 along WT Harris Blvd would remain, while one segment of NC 27 would remain and a renumbering of the other NC 27.

Just an idea, might have been thought of before.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 21, 2022, 05:03:58 PM
Completely random, but I think NCDOT should request a new U.S. Route to replace nearly all of NC 24. It would be a good case, route from biggest city to port city, connecting military installations along the way; a lot of the route is already widen to four-lane. It would begin at US 74 going east, with a routing along NC 210 through Fayetteville, and end at US 70 at Morehead City. Leftover segment of NC 24 along WT Harris Blvd would remain, while one segment of NC 27 would remain and a renumbering of the other NC 27.

Just an idea, might have been thought of before.
Don't see how that is possible aside from making it a US x17. And even if they wanted to replace NC 24 with a US route, I don't see that happening.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 21, 2022, 05:59:16 PM
Completely random, but I think NCDOT should request a new U.S. Route to replace nearly all of NC 24. It would be a good case, route from biggest city to port city, connecting military installations along the way; a lot of the route is already widen to four-lane. It would begin at US 74 going east, with a routing along NC 210 through Fayetteville, and end at US 70 at Morehead City. Leftover segment of NC 24 along WT Harris Blvd would remain, while one segment of NC 27 would remain and a renumbering of the other NC 27.

Just an idea, might have been thought of before.
Don't see how that is possible aside from making it a US x17. And even if they wanted to replace NC 24 with a US route, I don't see that happening.
I thought of that, too, but it's not going to happen; the day for entirely new US routes is probably long gone.

Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 21, 2022, 06:01:40 PM
Completely random, but I think NCDOT should request a new U.S. Route to replace nearly all of NC 24. It would be a good case, route from biggest city to port city, connecting military installations along the way; a lot of the route is already widen to four-lane. It would begin at US 74 going east, with a routing along NC 210 through Fayetteville, and end at US 70 at Morehead City. Leftover segment of NC 24 along WT Harris Blvd would remain, while one segment of NC 27 would remain and a renumbering of the other NC 27.

Just an idea, might have been thought of before.
Don't see how that is possible aside from making it a US x17. And even if they wanted to replace NC 24 with a US route, I don't see that happening.
I thought of that, too, but it's not going to happen; the day for entirely new US routes is probably long gone.

Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.
A Beulaville bypass was considered but now it's dropped.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2022, 06:48:48 PM
Completely random, but I think NCDOT should request a new U.S. Route to replace nearly all of NC 24. It would be a good case, route from biggest city to port city, connecting military installations along the way; a lot of the route is already widen to four-lane. It would begin at US 74 going east, with a routing along NC 210 through Fayetteville, and end at US 70 at Morehead City. Leftover segment of NC 24 along WT Harris Blvd would remain, while one segment of NC 27 would remain and a renumbering of the other NC 27.

Just an idea, might have been thought of before.
Don't see how that is possible aside from making it a US x17. And even if they wanted to replace NC 24 with a US route, I don't see that happening.
I thought of that, too, but it's not going to happen; the day for entirely new US routes is probably long gone.

Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.
The easiest connection for Jacksonville to reach the interstate system would be US-17 to US-70 / I-42. Half the route is already built to interstate standards, with only around 14 miles of partial control of access 4 lane divided needing full upgrade.

NC-24 would also be a good connection to reach I-40 and points northwest in the state such as Raleigh, Greensboro, etc. Arguably, NC-24 should be a full freeway between Jacksonville and Morehead City due to traffic volumes, however there's obviously right of way constraints to that.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 21, 2022, 11:07:27 PM
Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.

As important as Camp LeJeune is to the entire military network, I've always been surprised that the Navy/Marines didn't request an Interstate route to Jacksonville as part of the original system.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 22, 2022, 06:22:49 PM
Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.

As important as Camp LeJeune is to the entire military network, I've always been surprised that the Navy/Marines didn't request an Interstate route to Jacksonville as part of the original system.
Parris Island SC also lacks an interstate connection.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on February 22, 2022, 07:56:17 PM
Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.

As important as Camp LeJeune is to the entire military network, I've always been surprised that the Navy/Marines didn't request an Interstate route to Jacksonville as part of the original system.

Honestly NC 24 is four lane and pretty much does the job. Traffic isn't that heavy on that corridor.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Jaxrunner on February 23, 2022, 05:08:25 AM
US 17 needs to be four laned completely between Jacksonville  NC and Hampton Roads VA. I know most of the route is. There is military traffic between the Camp  Leguene and the Naval Bases up in Hampton Roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 11:50:02 AM
Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.

As important as Camp LeJeune is to the entire military network, I've always been surprised that the Navy/Marines didn't request an Interstate route to Jacksonville as part of the original system.

Parris Island SC also lacks an interstate connection.

There are some other large military installations that are not along the Interstate system, but Parris Island is only about 31 miles off of I-95.  The main entrance of Camp LeJeune is just a tad more than 50 miles from I-40 via NC-24 (and the western section named Camp Geiger is some 13 miles closer).  But that section of I-40 wasn't on the original Interstate system.  Once approved, Camp Lejeune will be about 43 miles from future I-42 at the US-17 interchange west of New Bern. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 12:00:43 PM
If an all-way stop is going to go there, then why not consider a roundabout afterwards since there is no plans to make a little three-lane bypass of it... A bypass of Grimesland would be ideal and I think it would be needed to avoid that blatant speed trap.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-23-pitt-county-all-way-stop.aspx

https://goo.gl/maps/Zr3t3g6GdPakrB9Y6
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 23, 2022, 12:16:38 PM
Update for latest projects. I hate delays...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/FEBRUARY%202022%20CHANGES%20SUMMARY.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on February 23, 2022, 05:48:56 PM
I wouldn't call Parris Island large, even in by Marine Corps standards. Along with nearby MCAS Beaufort and the Naval Hospital it pales in size, amount of servicemen, and importance to Lejuene. MCAS Cherry Point is also nearby but will have I-42 at its doorstep, eventually.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on February 23, 2022, 06:32:26 PM
If an all-way stop is going to go there, then why not consider a roundabout afterwards since there is no plans to make a little three-lane bypass of it... A bypass of Grimesland would be ideal and I think it would be needed to avoid that blatant speed trap.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-23-pitt-county-all-way-stop.aspx

https://goo.gl/maps/Zr3t3g6GdPakrB9Y6

An all-way stop is often an interim measure until a roundabout can be funded/built.  But if the volume is low, the all-way stop is a very safe counter-measure for a crash location such as this.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on February 23, 2022, 07:08:42 PM
Jacksonville has been complaining that it is the largest city in NC with no interstate connection existing or planned. This excites the Forum members who want to make all of US 17 an interstate, but a better idea might be to upgrade NC 24 to an interstate from Warsaw to Jacksonville. It is already four-laned.

As important as Camp LeJeune is to the entire military network, I've always been surprised that the Navy/Marines didn't request an Interstate route to Jacksonville as part of the original system.

I wouldn't call Parris Island large, even in by Marine Corps standards. Along with nearby MCAS Beaufort and the Naval Hospital it pales in size, amount of servicemen, and importance to Lejuene. MCAS Cherry Point is also nearby but will have I-42 at its doorstep, eventually.

Parris Island SC also lacks an interstate connection.

There are some other large military installations that are not along the Interstate system, but Parris Island is only about 31 miles off of I-95.  The main entrance of Camp LeJeune is just a tad more than 50 miles from I-40 via NC-24 (and the western section named Camp Geiger is some 13 miles closer).  But that section of I-40 wasn't on the original Interstate system.  Once approved, Camp Lejeune will be about 43 miles from future I-42 at the US-17 interchange west of New Bern.

I wouldn't call Parris Island large, even in by Marine Corps standards. Along with nearby MCAS Beaufort and the Naval Hospital it pales in size, amount of servicemen, and importance to Lejuene. MCAS Cherry Point is also nearby but will have I-42 at its doorstep, eventually.

The primary purpose of the Interstate system was to permit the Department of Defense (DoD) to relocate military equipment from one base to another quickly (or from the supplier contractor).  My father was in the Army Reserves in a joint Army/Marines unit and they would take a large convoy to the training base every Summer.  They alternated a variety of Army bases one year with the only suitable Marine Corps base (ergo Camp LeJeune) on the opposite years.  You see this type of convoy on the Interstate system all the time.  That particular movement wasn't an Interstate-worthy maneuver, but certainly gives you some idea of how it works.  Agreed, none of that is needed at Parris Island.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 23, 2022, 09:47:38 PM
Update for latest projects. I hate delays...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/FEBRUARY%202022%20CHANGES%20SUMMARY.pdf
They just don't like spending money in Burke, I hear that there is a structural issue with bridge 99, but it is plenty wide and handles traffic well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 24, 2022, 06:38:07 PM
NCDOT: "The contractor working on a $12.3 million project to replace a bridge over Interstate 40 in McDowell County has been found in default of its contract." This is the project to replace the bridge on Sugar Hill Road at Exit 81. The project began in 2019 and was to be completed by next month, but obviously that's not happening.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-24-national-bridge-defaults-i-40-mcdowell.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 27, 2022, 04:42:24 PM
Stumbled across a local article reporting that the 221 freeway bypass contract in Rutherfordton will commence tomorrow.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on February 28, 2022, 02:51:49 PM
Stumbled across a local article reporting that the 221 freeway bypass contract in Rutherfordton will commence tomorrow.
And it did. Construction started.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-28-rutherford-bypass-starts-construction.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 28, 2022, 08:39:59 PM
Stumbled across a local article reporting that the 221 freeway bypass contract in Rutherfordton will commence tomorrow.
And it did. Construction started.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-28-rutherford-bypass-starts-construction.aspx

I wish I had been aware of the project during the meeting phase....they really needed some kind of direct connection to 74 alt.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2022, 06:28:28 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract for improvements to the South Main Street interchange on US 29/70 (I-85 Business) in High Point. The bridge carrying US 29/70 over South Main Street will be replaced; the existing bridge is narrow with zero shoulders. South Main will be widened to provide turn lanes but it doesn't sound like anything much will be done to improve the inadequate ramps.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-01-us-29-70-85-business-interchange.aspx

BTW, weren't we going to remove Business I-85 signage? Google Maps shows it in place as of November 2021. Also, I recall US 70 is to be relocated from this section of US 29.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 01, 2022, 06:32:11 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract for improvements to the South Main Street interchange on US 29/70 (I-85 Business) in High Point. The bridge carrying US 29/70 over South Main Street will be replaced; the existing bridge is narrow with zero shoulders. South Main will be widened to provide turn lanes but it doesn't sound like anything much will be done to improve the inadequate ramps.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-01-us-29-70-85-business-interchange.aspx

BTW, weren't we going to remove Business I-85 signage? Google Maps shows it in place as of November 2021. Also, I recall US 70 is to be relocated from this section of US 29.



Signage plans for this project have US 29 signs only.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 01, 2022, 08:12:37 PM
BTW, weren't we going to remove Business I-85 signage? Google Maps shows it in place as of November 2021. Also, I recall US 70 is to be relocated from this section of US 29.

Signage plans for this project have US 29 signs only.

It seems like NCDOT is dragging its heels on removing signage on the north end of Green I-85.  They never posted Green I-85 on the reconstructed lanes on the south end, and now that section is I-285 anyhow.  I keep reading about the US-70 relocation (which was approved in 2019) and the removal of Green I-85 from Death Valley (approved in 2018), so those signage projects may indeed all be done in a full swoop.  Gee, it didn't take much time to get the Green I-40 signs slapped up and taken down in Greensboro when that mess happened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 01, 2022, 08:21:17 PM
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 01, 2022, 09:05:57 PM
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

The signing plans for Main St interchange are 3 months newer than these so it is possible the decision to dump signage is recent.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 02, 2022, 06:29:39 PM
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

The signing plans for Main St interchange are 3 months newer than these so it is possible the decision to dump signage is recent.
Very disappointing if the idea of relocating US 70 has been scrapped.  Who knows someone at NCDOT we can ask about this?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 02, 2022, 06:38:49 PM
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

The signing plans for Main St interchange are 3 months newer than these so it is possible the decision to dump signage is recent.

Very disappointing if the idea of relocating US 70 has been scrapped.  Who knows someone at NCDOT we can ask about this?

Might be a good topic for a new General Highway Talk thread, but does anybody here know if there is any precedence for a DOT backing out of a change already approved by AASHTO?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Roadsguy on March 02, 2022, 10:22:24 PM
US 70 being present in that signage isn't proof they've cancelled the reroute. It certainly wouldn't be the first time NCDOT has put up a whole set of brand new signs only to immediately change them (https://goo.gl/maps/ViVHg39caS4ELuqN9) as part of a major reroute.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 02, 2022, 10:25:20 PM
US 70 being present in that signage isn't proof they've cancelled the reroute. It certainly wouldn't be the first time NCDOT has put up a whole set of brand new signs only to immediately change them (https://goo.gl/maps/ViVHg39caS4ELuqN9) as part of a major reroute.
Still, them doing that makes the sign look stupid. I wish the signage plans were updated to reflect the change.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 02, 2022, 10:44:46 PM
US 70 being present in that signage isn't proof they've cancelled the reroute. It certainly wouldn't be the first time NCDOT has put up a whole set of brand new signs only to immediately change them (https://goo.gl/maps/ViVHg39caS4ELuqN9) as part of a major reroute.
Still, them doing that makes the sign look stupid. I wish the signage plans were updated to reflect the change.
Though the contract has only recently started, the sign plans have an approval date of January 16, 2019, prior to NCDOT's application to AASHTO about rerouting US 70 that fall. Why the plans were not modified since prior to the contract letting, you would have to ask NCDOT. Hopefully, the contractors will receive a new set of plans that do not include US 70 or call for the removal of US 70 shields along with Business 85 ones, like the plans for the recently awarded Main Street project in High Point. The NCDOT press release about the awarding of that contract indicates it is planned to be completed in the spring of 2024. Therefore, you should expect both US 70 and Business 85 shields to disappear within the next couple of years.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: J N Winkler on March 03, 2022, 02:14:08 AM
When route location decisions change after signing plans are finished, the necessary amendments are typically made either through addendum while the contract is under advertisement, or by change order after bid opening.  NCDOT's Xfer site is intended for distribution of as-advertised plans and thus isn't updated to reflect change orders.  In theory, a plans set that has been updated to reflect construction revisions should include all changes made before the contract was finaled, but it is still pretty rare for state DOTs to provide self-serve access to these.

With some state DOTs, what you see at advertisement is largely what you get when the project is finished.  With others, like Florida DOT, the as-lets are more of a first draft.

Looking at the MLK Jr. Dr. project Tolbs17 flagged (the TIP number for which is U-5754--the South Main Street interchange upgrade is U-5896 and had its bid opening last February 15), I see all of the sign elevations that call for reuse of existing structures note that the proposed signs are to be no larger than those already installed, so that there is no increase in wind load.  This makes me suspect that the US 70 shields have been left partly to ensure the design provides for AASHTO refusing to agree to relocate US 70.  It is easier to put a smaller sign on a beefy structure than it is to beef up a structure to take a larger sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on March 05, 2022, 06:53:32 PM
Good things about the Mid-Currituck Bridge, 60 MPH Speed Limit, this will be the first 2 lane road in NC with that high of a limit.  The only other Southeast State that has 60 on its 2 lanes is Florida.

I also like that the intersection with US 158 will be an interchange, great forward thinking by NCDOT on this one.  Good also on widening the north and southbound approaches on NC 12 from 2 to 4 lanes.

Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Wrong. US 421 is a 60mph highway and is 2lane throughout wilmington.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 05, 2022, 06:58:38 PM
Good things about the Mid-Currituck Bridge, 60 MPH Speed Limit, this will be the first 2 lane road in NC with that high of a limit.  The only other Southeast State that has 60 on its 2 lanes is Florida.

I also like that the intersection with US 158 will be an interchange, great forward thinking by NCDOT on this one.  Good also on widening the north and southbound approaches on NC 12 from 2 to 4 lanes.

Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Wrong. US 421 is a 60mph highway and is 2lane throughout wilmington.
What do you mean by "US-421"?

And like sprjus4 said, state law does not permit 2-lane highways to have speed limits any higher than 55 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 05, 2022, 07:25:42 PM
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

The signing plans for Main St interchange are 3 months newer than these so it is possible the decision to dump signage is recent.

Very disappointing if the idea of relocating US 70 has been scrapped.  Who knows someone at NCDOT we can ask about this?

Might be a good topic for a new General Highway Talk thread, but does anybody here know if there is any precedence for a DOT backing out of a change already approved by AASHTO?
[

quote author=wdcrft63 link=topic=100.msg2712930#msg2712930 date=1646263779]
But these signing plans show that US-70 will NOT be relocated.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/11-16-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/GUILFORD_54034.3.2_U-5754_C204665/Standard%20PDF%20Files/

The signing plans for Main St interchange are 3 months newer than these so it is possible the decision to dump signage is recent.
Very disappointing if the idea of relocating US 70 has been scrapped.  Who knows someone at NCDOT we can ask about this?
[/quote]

Same thing with NC-581 in Bailey and NC-55 in Holly Springs. They have been approved to be moved but signage was never updated.

https://goo.gl/maps/kv9keeSW5jRNxbQEA

https://goo.gl/maps/7FWn969AkjNnbEaN9

https://goo.gl/maps/bZZLBsgRpxkaeYhS9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_55

Quote
On October 3, 2019 NCDOT officially placed NC 55 on the Bypass, the route through the city was designated as SR 6107.

Yeah right.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 05, 2022, 08:27:08 PM
Good things about the Mid-Currituck Bridge, 60 MPH Speed Limit, this will be the first 2 lane road in NC with that high of a limit.  The only other Southeast State that has 60 on its 2 lanes is Florida.

I also like that the intersection with US 158 will be an interchange, great forward thinking by NCDOT on this one.  Good also on widening the north and southbound approaches on NC 12 from 2 to 4 lanes.

Bad things: the bridge needs to be at least 4 lanes especially considering there is going to be a toll and US 158 and US 64 bridges are toll free and are 4 lanes.

A roundabout for the intersection at NC 12 on the barrier island will be interesting, I have my doubts about this working in a high tourist area with many different driving styles prevalent.  I guess there wasn't enough room for an interchange?
Wrong. US 421 is a 60mph highway and is 2lane throughout wilmington.
What?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 07, 2022, 12:22:04 AM
Just in time for the widening project. A truck hits a overpass that was a low clearance in Dunn.

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/i-95-south-closed-at-us-421-in-harnett-county/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 11, 2022, 12:18:12 PM
NCDOT has declared another firm in breach of contract:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-10-ncdot-terminates-bridge-contracts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-10-ncdot-terminates-bridge-contracts.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 17, 2022, 11:32:14 AM
So, Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional in NC at least in one city......

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 17, 2022, 01:43:46 PM
For any Raleigh-area locals here, Reedy Creek Trail users will be detoured for a couple of months, beginning next week. This is due to the ongoing I-440 improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-17-reedy-creek-trail-detour-beltline-construction.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-03-17-reedy-creek-trail-detour-beltline-construction.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2022, 08:15:46 PM
delays...

https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/MARCH%202022%20CHANGES%20SUMMARY.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 18, 2022, 08:18:54 PM
So, Red Light Cameras Unconstitutional in NC at least in one city......

It's in Greenville. And they should just remove them!
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tolbs17 on March 19, 2022, 04:52:25 AM
Brunswick County CTP has been updated, it appears that all of US-17 will be relocated onto a new alignment (with the exception of the Shallotte Bypass). NC 211 is not going to be a freeway, let alone I-74 coming that way, it's not happening.

Evidence can be seen on page 17 when looking at H183738:
Quote from: NCDOT
I‐74 ‐ Construct I‐74 on new location
It's not getting carried over.

https://capefearcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/RTCC_Agenda_Packet_2020-04-01.pdf

This is a separate project, it's still getting built but it's not part of Myrtle beach to Wilmington corridor.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Delco bypass is in this though, NC-211 freeway is not in this

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Columbus%20County/Draft%20CTP%20Maps.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on March 19, 2022, 10:29:36 PM
Brunswick County CTP has been updated, it appears that all of US-17 will be relocated onto a new alignment (with the exception of the Shallotte Bypass). NC 211 is not going to be a freeway, let alone I-74 coming that way, it's not happening.

Evidence can be seen on page 17 when looking at H183738:
Quote from: NCDOT
I‐74 ‐ Construct I‐74 on new location
It's not getting carried over.

https://capefearcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/RTCC_Agenda_Packet_2020-04-01.pdf

This is a separate project, it's still getting built but it's not part of Myrtle beach to Wilmington corridor.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Delco bypass is in this though, NC-211 freeway is not in this

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Columbus%20County/Draft%20CTP%20Maps.pdf

While this is not NCDOT, it is interesting that both the Delco Bypass and construction of a freeway from NC 87 to I-140 is listed as an "I-74" project. Obviously not anything official but I do think it nicely shows the regional attitude which is that I-74 should be brought to Wilmington. Personally, I couldn't think of any reason for a freeway along NC 211 if South Carolina ever builds I-73.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 20, 2022, 01:31:55 AM
Brunswick County CTP has been updated, it appears that all of US-17 will be relocated onto a new alignment (with the exception of the Shallotte Bypass). NC 211 is not going to be a freeway, let alone I-74 coming that way, it's not happening.

Evidence can be seen on page 17 when looking at H183738:
Quote from: NCDOT
I‐74 ‐ Construct I‐74 on new location
It's not getting carried over.

https://capefearcog.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/RTCC_Agenda_Packet_2020-04-01.pdf

This is a separate project, it's still getting built but it's not part of Myrtle beach to Wilmington corridor.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Documents/U-5932-public-meeting-map.pdf

Delco bypass is in this though, NC-211 freeway is not in this

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/TPBCTP/Columbus%20County/Draft%20CTP%20Maps.pdf

While this is not NCDOT, it is interesting that both the Delco Bypass and construction of a freeway from NC 87 to I-140 is listed as an "I-74" project. Obviously not anything official but I do think it nicely shows the regional attitude which is that I-74 should be brought to Wilmington. Personally, I couldn't think of any reason for a freeway along NC 211 if South Carolina ever builds I-73.


It may be an I-x74. Who knows, but I do not think I-74 is going south along NC 211 to Myrtle Beach. There is a lot of wetlands along that route and there may be a lot of opposition, so it should just head east to Wilmington and be done with it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on March 20, 2022, 09:38:41 AM
It may be an I-x74. Who knows, but I do not think I-74 is going south along NC 211 to Myrtle Beach. There is a lot of wetlands along that route and there may be a lot of opposition, so it should just head east to Wilmington and be done with it.

LOL, here is that wishful thinking again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2022, 10:23:31 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Q2GP9v6nKCFjxF2T6

Does anyone know why US 1 SB at US 220 does a jog now instead of traveling straight across US 220 NB like it always done?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2022, 11:01:36 AM
It may be an I-x74. Who knows, but I do not think I-74 is going south along NC 211 to Myrtle Beach. There is a lot of wetlands along that route and there may be a lot of opposition, so it should just head east to Wilmington and be done with it.

LOL, here is that wishful thinking again.
Wishful thinking is that anything will ever get built along NC-211 south of Bolton.

US-74 east of Bolton is far more likely to see improvements.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 20, 2022, 11:29:11 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/Q2GP9v6nKCFjxF2T6

Does anyone know why US 1 SB at US 220 does a jog now instead of traveling straight across US 220 NB like it always done?

I see no sense in what they did here (apparently in 2015).  If the issue was T-bone crashes, then the new movement still requires crossing all lanes because the left turn is immediately upon you.

Looking at GMSV before the change, it is possible trees, etc. limited the view a little bit, but you could've just removed the trees.

US 1 is eventually going to be rerouted so that it bypasses Rockingham around the north side and will use US 220's route heading south.  If they retain the former route as US 1 Business, it would make sense to move it onto Midway Rd over to the existing diamond interchange for the southbound movement.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2022, 11:47:00 AM
^ Without taking a position on the issue, If I had to guess, it would seem the issue wasn't crossing the carriageways, but rather vehicles approaching the intersection on US-1 South and not stopping, blowing straight through instead.

With the new curving and forced right turn, a vehicle is much more likely to stop and not blow it.

It likely wasn't many vehicles, but it likely happened more than once.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on March 20, 2022, 12:35:16 PM
In the 'Why did that take so long? category. The NCDOT Board of Transportation approved of the ordinance relocating NC 150 in Kernersville on March 8. The route change request was submitted in Dec. 2015 and signage reflecting the change was put up in 2020, the request was issued prior to the decision to remove Business 40 on March 8 (p. 5 and appendix) and so that route is shown in all the maps:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2022/2022_03_08.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Ordinance%20Packages/2022/2022_03_08.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 20, 2022, 02:37:29 PM
^ Without taking a position on the issue, If I had to guess, it would seem the issue wasn't crossing the carriageways, but rather vehicles approaching the intersection on US-1 South and not stopping, blowing straight through instead.

With the new curving and forced right turn, a vehicle is much more likely to stop and not blow it.

It likely wasn't many vehicles, but it likely happened more than once.

I bet this was the case. It reminds me of a similar situation at NC 11/NC 903 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9882819,-77.2439691,806m/data=!3m1!1e3). 903 was most likely given that little jog on NC 11 to prevent cross traffic on 903 blowing through the stop sign. Older images show that 903 had a stop previously, while 11 didn't
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 20, 2022, 02:54:11 PM
^ Without taking a position on the issue, If I had to guess, it would seem the issue wasn't crossing the carriageways, but rather vehicles approaching the intersection on US-1 South and not stopping, blowing straight through instead.

With the new curving and forced right turn, a vehicle is much more likely to stop and not blow it.

It likely wasn't many vehicles, but it likely happened more than once.

I heard it was realigned because of vehicles not stopping at the intersection and causing wrecks along the way. You may be right.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 20, 2022, 10:46:39 PM
NC currently must have the most visible roadside trash in the country.

Raleigh is the worst, especially on Capital Blvd. at the Beltline. Every ramp in all directions utterly a trash dump.

The median of the Beltline also has continuous debris.

I am appalled with the amount of roadside trash right now, 3-20-22, on all of Raleigh's freeways.

Please join me in complaining to NCDOT and the City of Raleigh.

America's most talked about city is an embarassment to the 60 people a day moving to Wake county alone.

I cleaned up about 500 feet of shoulder along NC561 this past weekend. my effort will beautify a stretch of road for the next 9 months at least. I like working on projects with tangible results.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 26, 2022, 07:00:12 PM
The completion dates for the I-440 and I-40 widening projects in Raleigh have been pushed back. I-440's new completion date is now October 2024, and I-40's new completion date is now August 2024.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article259764830.html (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article259764830.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 30, 2022, 08:33:12 PM
Greenville's red-light scamera program was struck down in appeals court.

https://www.witn.com/2022/03/15/appeals-court-strikes-down-greenvilles-red-light-program/ (https://www.witn.com/2022/03/15/appeals-court-strikes-down-greenvilles-red-light-program/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: M3100 on April 09, 2022, 04:40:31 PM
A short news item in the April 7, 2022 USA Today mentions that the 2.4 mile Rodanthe Bridge will open today [April 9, 2022] to pedestrians and cyclists, ahead of being open to traffic later this month.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 09, 2022, 06:14:14 PM
A short news item in the April 7, 2022 USA Today mentions that the 2.4 mile Rodanthe Bridge will open today [April 9, 2022] to pedestrians and cyclists, ahead of being open to traffic later this month.
NCDOT held a Community Day celebration at the bridge today, including 5-mile and 5K races over the bridge and the bridge was open to pedestrians and bicyclists all afternoon. It will be a few days before it's opened to traffic.
https://www.thecoastlandtimes.com/2022/04/07/rodanthe-bridge-community-day-set-for-saturday/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 12, 2022, 03:43:21 PM
Traffic shifts at the I-40/I-440/I-87 interchange this weekend due to the I-40 widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-04-08-i-40-west-traffic-shifts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-04-08-i-40-west-traffic-shifts.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 12, 2022, 06:29:08 PM
Driving I-40 west of Winston-Salem? The Davie County rest area will be closed for ten days, April 18-27, for pavement repairs.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-04-12-davie-county-rest-area-closure.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: oscar on April 27, 2022, 11:17:04 PM
A short news item in the April 7, 2022 USA Today mentions that the 2.4 mile Rodanthe Bridge will open today [April 9, 2022] to pedestrians and cyclists, ahead of being open to traffic later this month.
NCDOT held a Community Day celebration at the bridge today, including 5-mile and 5K races over the bridge and the bridge was open to pedestrians and bicyclists all afternoon. It will be a few days before it's opened to traffic.
https://www.thecoastlandtimes.com/2022/04/07/rodanthe-bridge-community-day-set-for-saturday/

Looks like "a few days" is now "a few weeks", with opening sometime in mid-May. Blamed on a bad expansion joint.

https://www.wavy.com/news/north-carolina/obx/nc-12-bridge-near-rodanthe-at-outer-banks-to-open-later-this-month/

Too bad, I'm going to be on the Outer Banks this weekend. I can always return to Rodanthe when the new bridge opens, but that'd mean a half-day detour from I-95 (which is about as far east as I usually venture in NC).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on April 28, 2022, 09:53:25 AM
INTERSTATE 495 is coming to Fayetteville!  :D
(https://i.imgur.com/r06vRSx.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on April 28, 2022, 09:58:50 AM
Ok, so it looks like maybe an error possibly?  :confused:
I495 seen in project proposal, but NOT in sign plans!  :rolleyes:
(https://i.imgur.com/8loo4qJ.png)
Besides, we gotta wait till 2027 for this to be done.
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/DSplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/06-21-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CUMBERLAND_34817.3.14_34817.3.15_U-2519BA-U2519BB_C204110/Project%20Proposal.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/DSplan/2022%20Highway%20Letting/06-21-22/Plans%20and%20Proposals/CUMBERLAND_34817.3.14_34817.3.15_U-2519BA-U2519BB_C204110/Project%20Proposal.pdf)
FULL ARTICLE ABOVE
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 28, 2022, 01:40:52 PM
I assume this is just a misprint, and they really meant Interstate 295.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 28, 2022, 03:53:06 PM
^ Safe to say.  Specifically mentions the Fayetteville Outer Loop which is I-295, not I-495
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on May 01, 2022, 11:09:54 AM
Alright, it seems to be that NCDOT has messed up and erroneously posted this as 495.  :colorful:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 01, 2022, 03:41:06 PM
Alright, it seems to be that NCDOT has messed up and erroneously posted this as 495.  :colorful:

Better than posting part of the Beltline and part of the Knightdale Bypass as I-495, then having to repost as I-87 a few years later.   :pan:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on May 01, 2022, 04:43:50 PM
Was 440 and 495 multiplexed like 87?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2022, 05:43:23 PM
Was 440 and 495 multiplexed like 87?
No. It only extended along US-64 between I-440 and I-540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 04, 2022, 10:41:52 PM
NCDOT has awarded a contract to widen US-17 in Beaufort & Martin counties, from just north of NC-171 to the existing 4-lane section just south of Williamston. Work is expected to begin this summer with completion set for summer 2026.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-04-us-17-widening-contract.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-04-us-17-widening-contract.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 06, 2022, 12:04:10 AM
NCDOT is opening a new rest area on I-26 East at the Buncombe/Henderson County line:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-05-i-26-east-rest-area-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-05-i-26-east-rest-area-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 11, 2022, 08:37:33 PM
In case there wasn't enough road work in the Triangle, NCDOT has awarded a contract to rehab I-40 between Wade Avenue and the I-40/I-440/US-1 interchange. Work will begin sometime this year, and is expected to wrap up by the end of 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-11-i-40-rehab-wade-ave-i-440.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-11-i-40-rehab-wade-ave-i-440.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: snowc on May 14, 2022, 10:16:22 AM
In case there wasn't enough road work in the Triangle, NCDOT has awarded a contract to rehab I-40 between Wade Avenue and the I-40/I-440/US-1 interchange. Work will begin sometime this year, and is expected to wrap up by the end of 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-11-i-40-rehab-wade-ave-i-440.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-11-i-40-rehab-wade-ave-i-440.aspx)
That is the last of the repaved concrete in Wake County!
One more segment is left that is in Durham County, exits ~273-279, and is probably gonna be next.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on May 18, 2022, 01:46:18 AM
So, it seems that I-26 has gained some new 'official' mileage.

It's no longer 'Future' between Exits #9 & #13 per signage.

Between Exits 11 & 13 going 'SB' ('EB'):
May '13, no I-26 shield. (https://goo.gl/maps/NZK938THnXBLpYZWA)
Apr '18, I-26 now there. (https://goo.gl/maps/Pe9kB71EZTVN6Wch6)

But, then again, same segment, but instead going 'NB' ('WB'):
No I-26 shield here, at any historical StreetView capture. (https://goo.gl/maps/SQTdc9HpNJBGXaf18)

Then we have between Exits 9 & 11 going 'SB':
May '13, no I-26 shield. (https://goo.gl/maps/83wz1KKCxXD2UL9W7)
Apr '18, now I-26 shield is there, plus the US-19/23 shields have been shifted a little bit farther south to join it. (https://goo.gl/maps/uwDyVgG7TU39W2DR8)
(no corresponding shields going the other direction between these two exits)


Also, if you look down at the crossroad @ Exit 13, you're greeted with the following from Sep '21 imagery clearly showing this is the end of the 'official' I-26 right now:
https://goo.gl/maps/ASiC2Z1UazC8hRDT9 = Future EB I-26
https://goo.gl/maps/TYHfi4aC4LmRe2L49 = WB I-26
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on May 18, 2022, 03:29:37 AM
So, it seems that I-26 has gained some new 'official' mileage.

It's no longer 'Future' between Exits #9 & #13 per signage.

Between Exits 11 & 13 going 'SB' ('EB'):
May '13, no I-26 shield. (https://goo.gl/maps/NZK938THnXBLpYZWA)
Apr '18, I-26 now there. (https://goo.gl/maps/Pe9kB71EZTVN6Wch6)

But, then again, same segment, but instead going 'NB' ('WB'):
No I-26 shield here, at any historical StreetView capture. (https://goo.gl/maps/SQTdc9HpNJBGXaf18)

Then we have between Exits 9 & 11 going 'SB':
May '13, no I-26 shield. (https://goo.gl/maps/83wz1KKCxXD2UL9W7)
Apr '18, now I-26 shield is there, plus the US-19/23 shields have been shifted a little bit farther south to join it. (https://goo.gl/maps/uwDyVgG7TU39W2DR8)
(no corresponding shields going the other direction between these two exits)


Also, if you look down at the crossroad @ Exit 13, you're greeted with the following from Sep '21 imagery clearly showing this is the end of the 'official' I-26 right now:
https://goo.gl/maps/ASiC2Z1UazC8hRDT9 = Future EB I-26
https://goo.gl/maps/TYHfi4aC4LmRe2L49 = WB I-26
I-26 looks Interstate standard from EXIT 13 to EXIT 9 now.  Must have improved the shoulders.  South of EXIT 13, the shoulders are minimal--enough to fit rumble strips on.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 18, 2022, 06:22:35 PM
NCDOT is about to resurface the main street in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. It is a long-standing tradition to schedule Chapel Hill projects in the summer, when there are many fewer students and faculty in town. And it is also traditional that these projects somehow don't quite get completed before classes begin in the fall.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-18-franklin-street-chapel-hill-paving.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 26, 2022, 11:43:43 AM
NC-119 Bypass around Mebane is opening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 26, 2022, 11:56:43 AM
NC-119 Bypass around Mebane is opening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx)

I thought this day would never come.  I was headed to Burlington via the northern bypass of Mebane early last week and was surprised to see new signage for NC-119 northbound from Stagecoach Road.  That stretch was not yet open but looked like it was complete.  There was no signage for NC-119 southbound there as of Tuesday, May 17.  I'm wondering if that short stretch opened a few days early?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 26, 2022, 06:24:29 PM
NC-119 Bypass around Mebane is opening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx)

I thought this day would never come.  I was headed to Burlington via the northern bypass of Mebane early last week and was surprised to see new signage for NC-119 northbound from Stagecoach Road.  That stretch was not yet open but looked like it was complete.  There was no signage for NC-119 southbound there as of Tuesday, May 17.  I'm wondering if that short stretch opened a few days early?
Google Maps shows the DDI and the route of the new bypass.
https://goo.gl/maps/PdaB36ZpqerPDQhQ9
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 27, 2022, 01:41:23 PM
NC-119 Bypass around Mebane is opening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-26-mebane-bypass-road-open.aspx)

I thought this day would never come.  I was headed to Burlington via the northern bypass of Mebane early last week and was surprised to see new signage for NC-119 northbound from Stagecoach Road.  That stretch was not yet open but looked like it was complete.  There was no signage for NC-119 southbound there as of Tuesday, May 17.  I'm wondering if that short stretch opened a few days early?

Google Maps shows the DDI and the route of the new bypass.
https://goo.gl/maps/PdaB36ZpqerPDQhQ9

It's hard to believe that the DDI (Exit 153) opened almost 4 years ago.  The final layer of blacktop wasn't applied until the early part of 2022.  This project was roaring along in 2016 and then came to an almost complete standstill, presumably because of the NCDOT financial issues related to eminent domain payments.  The big question in Mebane is whether Sonic Drive-In will return.  That property got chopped, but it looks like there are more properties now available (but way too expensive for a fast food joint).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: oscar on May 27, 2022, 07:42:15 PM
A short news item in the April 7, 2022 USA Today mentions that the 2.4 mile Rodanthe Bridge will open today [April 9, 2022] to pedestrians and cyclists, ahead of being open to traffic later this month.

The new bridge is expected to finally open to traffic late next week (https://islandfreepress.org/outer-banks-news/jug-handle-bridge-is-scheduled-to-open-to-traffic-next-week/), after Memorial Day weekend.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2022, 11:11:36 AM
NCDOT press release regarding the draft 2024-2033 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-31-draft-stip-transportation-plan-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-31-draft-stip-transportation-plan-release.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 31, 2022, 05:07:29 PM
NCDOT press release regarding the draft 2024-2033 STIP.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-31-draft-stip-transportation-plan-release.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-05-31-draft-stip-transportation-plan-release.aspx)

Some background on how the Draft STIP for 2024 was developed.

https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/MPORPODocuments/2024-2033%20STIP%20Education%20Presentation%20-%20April%202022.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 31, 2022, 07:16:59 PM
I have seen from several states that between revenue loss and inflation that the infrastructure bill that had actually passes may result in a wash.  Any thoughts on what the real NC impact is currently looking like?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 31, 2022, 07:51:37 PM
I have seen from several states that between revenue loss and inflation that the infrastructure bill that had actually passes may result in a wash.  Any thoughts on what the real NC impact is currently looking like?

Funny, my son and I were having this same conversation this morning.  Now I know enough to talk to him about it more (thanks to LM117 and CowboyWilhelm).  Assuming this 10-Year STIP has some factor for construction inflation/escalation, right now NCDOT is short $3.36B for Statewide Mobility programs/projects and $3.86B short for Regional Impact programs/projects.  Not sure how things stacked up last year, but it seems like this has worsened due to the current economy.  NCDOT was already having financial issues because of the cost impact of related to the gazillion eminent domain settlements.  However, the issue here is not revenue loss.  It does appear that North Carolina is back to annual adjustments on the gas tax.  The state was making more tax revenue when they started quarterly recalculations back around 2013.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 01, 2022, 07:42:43 AM
Don't forget to add in the rising value of real estate and the increasing costs for right-of-way acquisition. I can't imagine how much the costs have gone up for an upcoming project like the I-26 connector through Asheville with 150 relocations required.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 03, 2022, 06:13:42 PM
The ramp from I-40 West to I-440 West in southeast Raleigh will be closed this weekend as part of the I-40 widening project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-03-i-40-440-ramp-closure-raleigh.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-03-i-40-440-ramp-closure-raleigh.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on June 04, 2022, 06:43:59 PM
The $58 million will go towards preliminary engineering for the missing S-Line tracks north of Ridgeway, preliminary design for the route, and money towards eliminating at-grade crossings along the route in Wake County.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2022/06/01/raleigh-to-richmond-rail-line-get-a--58-million-boost-from-the-feds
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 06, 2022, 06:03:20 PM
Adjustments made to summer ferry schedules due to shoaling and labor shortage.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-06-summer-ferry-schedule-adjustment.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-06-summer-ferry-schedule-adjustment.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 07, 2022, 11:35:00 AM
The rest area/welcome center on I-95 in Robeson County will be torn down and replaced. Work is set to begin later this month and the new building is expected to open by summer 2023.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-07-robeson-county-rest-area-replacement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-07-robeson-county-rest-area-replacement.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 08, 2022, 04:13:18 PM
Bridge opening delayed due to substandard pavement markings:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 10, 2022, 01:25:45 PM
What will happen to the existing road? Will it be abandoned?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 10, 2022, 08:34:38 PM
What will happen to the existing road? Will it be abandoned?

The existing road will not be available to the general public, and eventually it will get washed out permanently.  The Atlantic Ocean is trying to re-establish a former channel between Pea Island and Hatteras Island, and it has made a complete cut across NC-12 into Pamlico Sound several times in the past two decades.  The new bridge will allow the channel to become permanent again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on June 13, 2022, 12:37:05 AM
This is not road-related but I have noticed that tolbs17 has not been on the forum since the end of March.  I was a bit surprised not to see any posts of his lately--especially in this thread.  Is he OK or has something occurred?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on June 13, 2022, 02:38:31 AM
Bridge opening delayed due to substandard pavement markings:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx)

Heh, NC has substandard pavement markings all over Charlotte!  Very hard to see lane markings at night since the paint is either worn away or barely reflective.  And they don’t seem to want to retrace lines or replace/repair the pavement reflectors.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 13, 2022, 05:28:01 PM
Bridge opening delayed due to substandard pavement markings:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-06-08-rodanthe-bridge-delay.aspx)

Heh, NC has substandard pavement markings all over Charlotte!  Very hard to see lane markings at night since the paint is either worn away or barely reflective.  And they don’t seem to want to retrace lines or replace/repair the pavement reflectors.

Talk to the Division at their Albemarle HQ and request fixes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on June 14, 2022, 12:49:26 PM
This is not road-related but I have noticed that tolbs17 has not been on the forum since the end of March.  I was a bit surprised not to see any posts of his lately--especially in this thread.  Is he OK or has something occurred?
It’s been discussed elsewhere, but he was banned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on June 14, 2022, 07:38:24 PM
This is not road-related but I have noticed that tolbs17 has not been on the forum since the end of March.  I was a bit surprised not to see any posts of his lately--especially in this thread.  Is he OK or has something occurred?
It’s been discussed elsewhere, but he was banned.

tolbs17 was banned? that explains why I don't see his posts lately. oof.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 21, 2022, 09:05:47 PM
So, I see NC Dots STIP is reported to be around $8B overcommitted  over the next 10 years, I look at their annual budget of $6B, does this mean that they just need to stretch their current list out an extra 18 months?  What is the real story, did the infrastructure  bill help at all?  NC is looking at a decent state surplus, do you see any extra money being dropped in the bucket from the state?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 21, 2022, 09:10:51 PM
The inflation of the past several months likely played a factor there.  It's effectively made the infrastructure bill a wash.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 21, 2022, 10:05:59 PM
From what I've gathered reading through their online documents, NCDOT significantly over-programmed the STIP based on poor planning that grossly under-estimated right-of-way and construction costs (see slide 15 here (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/MPORPODocuments/2024-2033%20STIP%20Education%20Presentation%20-%20April%202022.pdf)), meaning they added too many projects they couldn't afford to construct all at once once actual costs were determined during the design phase. As previously discussed, a combination of storm recovery costs, Map Act settlements and COVID impacts to revenue delayed many projects by a few years. They have recovered their budget, but now you have inflation driving costs much higher for projects that were delayed and originally estimated at x dollars several years ago. In order to fund upcoming projects that may costs tens of millions of dollars more to construct now, they have to delay other projects, and it continues to cascade. So, like us at the grocery store, they're getting less from the money in their pocket than they used to and aren't adding any new projects to the STIP until they can construct their committed projects.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 21, 2022, 10:50:40 PM
I do understand the concept, but do they have kind of estimate of when they may be back on track?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on June 21, 2022, 10:57:48 PM
Wonder if FHWA is looser with NC than they are with NY.  Fiscal constraint of the STIP is watched over closely and FHWA requires offsets.  NY can't report their STIP as being "overcommitted" when the update is complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 24, 2022, 01:49:18 PM
I-540 ramp meters to be reactivated on June 28.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/I-540-ramp-meters-reactivated.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/I-540-ramp-meters-reactivated.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on June 24, 2022, 02:01:38 PM
I'm surprised they haven't thrown meters on the ramps along I-77 in Charlotte south of downtown uptown yet. But then again I guess the pandemic got in the way, being that's the reason for the existing ones to be suspended
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on June 24, 2022, 05:23:21 PM
I'm surprised they haven't thrown meters on the ramps along I-77 in Charlotte south of downtown uptown yet. But then again I guess the pandemic got in the way, being that's the reason for the existing ones to be suspended

Honestly, the ramps along I-77 aren't the issue, there isn't that much traffic coming on/off the ramps during rush hour. The reality is that the traffic is coming/going to Ballantyne and South Carolina, so the traffic always begins/ends at the I-77/I-485 merger to Uptown.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on June 28, 2022, 02:38:44 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7994296,-78.1507002,14z/data=!5m1!1e1
What is up with Google signing US 264 as I-40 ALT?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 28, 2022, 04:24:44 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7994296,-78.1507002,14z/data=!5m1!1e1
What is up with Google signing US 264 as I-40 ALT?

There are I-40 ALT detour signs for the I-40 construction south of Raleigh
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on June 28, 2022, 04:27:03 PM
Lengthy detour I must admit.

Edit
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52180003801_088f4c87d0_c.jpg)

I did find signs in the field on it though. Taken in September 2020.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 28, 2022, 09:18:55 PM
There are still ALT I-85 signs on US-64 from the construction years ago. They'll get around to removing them..... eventually. Also parts of NC-50 are signed as ALT I-40 too. Not a lengthy detour, but not the best of alternates being a 2 lane road in the area.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Takumi on June 28, 2022, 11:07:16 PM
There are still ALT I-85 signs on US-64 from the construction years ago. They'll get around to removing them..... eventually. Also parts of NC-50 are signed as ALT I-40 too. Not a lengthy detour, but not the best of alternates being a 2 lane road in the area.
When I was coming back from Greenville about a year ago there was still an ALT I-85 sign on I-95 in Roanoke Rapids.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on June 29, 2022, 10:42:33 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/A3xVTF6LiAeEhi8Y6

Hope this anomaly goes away with the I-587 sign replacement.The shields and the guide contradict each other.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 29, 2022, 01:01:27 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/A3xVTF6LiAeEhi8Y6

Hope this anomaly goes away with the I-587 sign replacement.The shields and the guide contradict each other.

It's confusing, but they don't contradict.  US-258 is multiplexed with I-587 between Exit 63 (the one you posted) and Exit 66.  So if you get off on Exit 63 looking for northbound US-258 you'll simply get to the bottom of the offramp and find a trailblazer to go straight through to get back onto the freeway.  Indeed, the BGS for this exit should be marked for South US-258 and it would be even less confusing if there was a pull-thru BGS over the left lane for "East I-587" and "North US-258".  But alas, US-258 is a minor road in both North Carolina and Virginia (lesser status than most of the state routes intersecting it), and I doubt that such confusion will warrant a fix.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on June 29, 2022, 01:16:42 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/A3xVTF6LiAeEhi8Y6

Hope this anomaly goes away with the I-587 sign replacement.The shields and the guide contradict each other.

It's confusing, but they don't contradict.  US-258 is multiplexed with I-587 between Exit 63 (the one you posted) and Exit 66.  So if you get off on Exit 63 looking for northbound US-258 you'll simply get to the bottom of the offramp and find a trailblazer to go straight through to get back onto the freeway.  Indeed, the BGS for this exit should be marked for South US-258 and it would be even less confusing if there was a pull-thru BGS over the left lane for "East I-587" and "North US-258".  But alas, US-258 is a minor road in both North Carolina and Virginia (lesser status than most of the state routes intersecting it), and I doubt that such confusion will warrant a fix.

The BGS is older than when US 258 was placed on now-I-587 around Farmville in late 2009.  North Carolina often will not replace a BGS solely for routing changes like that and opt to wait for normal lifespan replacement.  They could do an interim fix and add a 3rd posting with US 258 Business on it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on June 29, 2022, 01:26:15 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/A3xVTF6LiAeEhi8Y6

Hope this anomaly goes away with the I-587 sign replacement.The shields and the guide contradict each other.

It's confusing, but they don't contradict.  US-258 is multiplexed with I-587 between Exit 63 (the one you posted) and Exit 66.  So if you get off on Exit 63 looking for northbound US-258 you'll simply get to the bottom of the offramp and find a trailblazer to go straight through to get back onto the freeway.  Indeed, the BGS for this exit should be marked for South US-258 and it would be even less confusing if there was a pull-thru BGS over the left lane for "East I-587" and "North US-258".  But alas, US-258 is a minor road in both North Carolina and Virginia (lesser status than most of the state routes intersecting it), and I doubt that such confusion will warrant a fix.


You’re thinking like Indiana does in other roads beginning concurrency on freeways.

NCDOT still uses Nashville for US64 on I-95 instead of Raleigh due to when I-95 first opened there US 64 was only a freeway in Nash County and arterial the rest of the drive to the Capital.  Instead you get a cheap addition to the sign.

NCDOT seems very cheap for a state that wants interstates everywhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on July 02, 2022, 01:26:31 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/sTSMYb7X27V5Gv1x7
I was noticing that US 64 ALT from Rocky Mount to Williamston is signed with either the ALT or ALTERNATE banner instead of the A suffix like US 74 ALT in Asheville is signed.

Am I to assume that the inconsistency has to do with different governing districts as one likes the suffix while another likes the banner?   
https://goo.gl/maps/LQYGmEzTLoEKtJ5A7
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 02, 2022, 09:56:10 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/sTSMYb7X27V5Gv1x7
I was noticing that US 64 ALT from Rocky Mount to Williamston is signed with either the ALT or ALTERNATE banner instead of the A suffix like US 74 ALT in Asheville is signed.

Am I to assume that the inconsistency has to do with different governing districts as one likes the suffix while another likes the banner?   
https://goo.gl/maps/LQYGmEzTLoEKtJ5A7

Possibly. The suffix version was the original standard for North Carolina and you will see that version all over the state, while the banner version appears most common in eastern North Carolina. Currently, there are 15 alternate routes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Highways_in_North_Carolina#Alternate_routes) in the state, eight of which are suffixed and seven of which are bannered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on July 02, 2022, 11:18:34 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/sTSMYb7X27V5Gv1x7
I was noticing that US 64 ALT from Rocky Mount to Williamston is signed with either the ALT or ALTERNATE banner instead of the A suffix like US 74 ALT in Asheville is signed.

Am I to assume that the inconsistency has to do with different governing districts as one likes the suffix while another likes the banner?   
https://goo.gl/maps/LQYGmEzTLoEKtJ5A7

Possibly. The suffix version was the original standard for North Carolina and you will see that version all over the state, while the banner version appears most common in eastern North Carolina. Currently, there are 15 alternate routes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Highways_in_North_Carolina#Alternate_routes) in the state, eight of which are suffixed and seven of which are bannered.

Thought so. North of Raleigh, US 1 has a US 1A and the Pine Level alternate of US 70:is suffixed. 

I always remembered as a kid seeing A suffixed in NC and bannered in SC.   So it would make even more sense  if they were phasing out A suffixes, but US 74A in Western NC would then be ALT as it was created in the last thirty years .
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 03, 2022, 01:19:17 PM
The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, opened in 1969, is the iconic lifeblood of Wilmington, North Carolina.  It is also the biggest traffic headache and infrastructure concern of the growing southeastern North Carolina city.

While different proposals to replace or bypass are being considered, debated, rejected, and rejuvenated, the aging bridge carries over 60,000 vehicles a day and that number is growing.

A history of this unique bridge and a look at its future.

https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2022/07/cape-fear-memorial-bridge.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on July 05, 2022, 08:12:08 AM
The Cape Fear Memorial Bridge, opened in 1969, is the iconic lifeblood of Wilmington, North Carolina.  It is also the biggest traffic headache and infrastructure concern of the growing southeastern North Carolina city.

While different proposals to replace or bypass are being considered, debated, rejected, and rejuvenated, the aging bridge carries over 60,000 vehicles a day and that number is growing.

A history of this unique bridge and a look at its future.

https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2022/07/cape-fear-memorial-bridge.html

You mean the bridge that was originally US 17, then not, and now US 17 again?  :bigass: :bigass:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 07, 2022, 09:18:35 AM
Oof, terrible news for people who take US 70/I-42 into Raleigh. Ramp merging onto I-40 will be closed for more than a year.


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article263092168.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2022, 09:24:49 AM
Oof, terrible news for people who take US 70/I-42 into Raleigh. Ramp merging onto I-40 will be closed for more than a year.


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article263092168.html
The ramp from US-70 westbound to I-40 eastbound (i.e. south towards I-95) will be closing, not the ramp onto I-40 west towards Raleigh.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on July 07, 2022, 12:46:13 PM
Oof, terrible news for people who take US 70/I-42 into Raleigh. Ramp merging onto I-40 will be closed for more than a year.


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article263092168.html
The ramp from US-70 westbound to I-40 eastbound (i.e. south towards I-95) will be closing, not the ramp onto I-40 west towards Raleigh.

Thanks for clearing it up. Still really bad for the people who live around JoCo tho.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 07, 2022, 02:07:43 PM
Oof, terrible news for people who take US 70/I-42 into Raleigh. Ramp merging onto I-40 will be closed for more than a year.


https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article263092168.html
The ramp from US-70 westbound to I-40 eastbound (i.e. south towards I-95) will be closing, not the ramp onto I-40 west towards Raleigh.

Thanks for clearing it up. Still really bad for the people who live around JoCo tho.

Ultimately this will just clog up NC 42 even more than it already is.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2022, 02:38:16 PM
What is the volume of traffic that uses that ramp pre-closure?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 07, 2022, 08:26:59 PM
What is the volume of traffic that uses that ramp pre-closure?

Per the traffic forecast diagram on the public hearing map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/final-eis/design-maps/C540_dphm_06.pdf), 1,750 ADT in 2016 (after splitting in half for both directions) and 2,100 estimated for the design year of 2040. The online AADT viewer (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4) shows 1,200 for the ramp in 2020. The AADT shapefiles from NCDOT have the ramp at 1,400 in 2019 and 1,200 in 2018.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 07, 2022, 08:46:00 PM
Do other states have truck rollover advisory/warning signs on interstate mainlines, or is North Carolina special?

I-26
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201292391_dde8735e0f_o.png) (https://goo.gl/maps/Bpox57egxBVahnwF9)

I-40
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201317928_279b68cdfc_o.png) (https://goo.gl/maps/Gt3h44TYhwUQWZfw5)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on July 07, 2022, 11:04:32 PM
What is the volume of traffic that uses that ramp pre-closure?

Per the traffic forecast diagram on the public hearing map (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/PDEA/Web/Complete540/final-eis/design-maps/C540_dphm_06.pdf), 1,750 ADT in 2016 (after splitting in half for both directions) and 2,100 estimated for the design year of 2040. The online AADT viewer (https://ncdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=964881960f0549de8c3583bf46ef5ed4) shows 1,200 for the ramp in 2020. The AADT shapefiles from NCDOT have the ramp at 1,400 in 2019 and 1,200 in 2018.
That means peak hour volume of no more than 200, roughly. That should fit on back roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on July 07, 2022, 11:35:11 PM
Do other states have truck rollover advisory/warning signs on interstate mainlines, or is North Carolina special?

I-26
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201292391_dde8735e0f_o.png) (https://goo.gl/maps/Bpox57egxBVahnwF9)

I-40
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52201317928_279b68cdfc_o.png) (https://goo.gl/maps/Gt3h44TYhwUQWZfw5)

SC does on I-77:
https://goo.gl/maps/PhgTSHgWzMGqtF9s6
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on July 08, 2022, 12:01:09 AM
While NC is certainly special, MD has them for sure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on July 08, 2022, 11:12:44 AM
SC does on I-77:
https://goo.gl/maps/PhgTSHgWzMGqtF9s6

As does West Virginia, further north on I-77, on the southbound side coming down Flat Top Mountain to a sharp curve.

https://goo.gl/maps/T6shorFCE1xnUuey5
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 11, 2022, 10:04:29 AM
A contract for building the Drysdale Drive Extension in Wilmington has been awarded. The extension is the first phase of a new Eastwood Road/Military Cutoff Road interchange. Work can begin in August and is expected to be complete in 2 years.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-11-new-hanover-county-item-c-awarded.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-11-new-hanover-county-item-c-awarded.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 19, 2022, 08:42:42 AM
Rocky Mount Telegram:  Construction of three bridges to resume in Edgecombe County (https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/business/construction-of-three-bridges-to-resume-in-edgecombe-county/article_244f5062-cf98-513a-9505-01d931da0e0f.html)

(Related to NC 97 and NC 111/NC 222)

Quote
Construction will soon resume on three Edgecombe County bridges that have been out of service for as long as 15 months will soon resume, according to the state Department of Transportation.

Work was halted on the bridges in February when Kernersville-based National Bridge Builders removed its equipment and crews and abandoned the projects after the bridges has been removed.

In March, NCDOT terminated the contracts and declared the company in default – which placed the responsibility of getting the jobs completed on the bonding company, which has sued NBB in federal court in Asheville.

Replacement contractors have been secured to resume work on the three bridge projects.

According to a news release from NCDOT, the bonding company has recently notified the agency of the following replacement contractors and updated construction schedules for the affected sites:

Three bridges clustered together over Swift Creek on Seven Bridges Road in Edgecombe County.  S.T. Wooten Corp. will start in September and reopen the road by May 2023. Work on this project got underway on April 8, 2021, and was originally scheduled to be completed by Jan. 28, 2023.
N.C. 122/N.C. 111 bridge over Town Creek north of Pinetops in Edgecombe County. Sanford Contractors will start this month and reopen the road by March 2023. Demolition on the bridge began on July 19, 2021.
N.C. 97 over Swift Creek north of Tarboro in Edgecombe County. Sanford Contractors will begin this month and reopen the road by April 2023. The project originally got underway on July 19, 2021, and was scheduled to be completed on Dec. 28.
The news release noted that NCDOT rarely terminates a contract after it has been awarded and does so only after exhausting all efforts to keep the contractor on schedule. The agency requires bonding companies in its contracts to protect the taxpayers in the event of a breach of contract.

So hopefully I will finish clinching NC 97 eventually.   :wow:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 19, 2022, 03:43:32 PM
IIRC, this the bunch that bailed on the sugar Hill Rd bridge over 40 in Marion, hopefully work can resume on that soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on July 21, 2022, 08:41:58 AM
Anyone know if NCDOT repaired the pothole over US 301 & 501 on I-95 SB near South of The Border?  I seen it goes completely through the bridge deck with a hole over US 301 & 501 in a FB post.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 21, 2022, 09:19:50 AM
I got clarification from NCDOT this morning that the US 401 Widening north of NC 96 is still planned to be completed by the end of November 2022.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on July 21, 2022, 11:06:59 AM
https://www.facebook.com/JoeBrena/videos/448116113591798/

News article on the hole.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 22, 2022, 04:16:43 PM
As part of the ongoing DDI conversion, the ramp from I-40 East to NC-42 south of Garner will close tonight at 9pm and reopen at 5am Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 22, 2022, 05:28:25 PM
As part of the ongoing DDI conversion, the ramp from I-40 East to NC-42 south of Garner will close tonight at 9pm and reopen at 5am Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx)
Perhaps this is one reason they haven't signed I-42 along the Bypass yet.  Might have been too confusing to some drivers being told take a detour on I-42 East to access NC 42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on July 22, 2022, 10:45:26 PM
As part of the ongoing DDI conversion, the ramp from I-40 East to NC-42 south of Garner will close tonight at 9pm and reopen at 5am Monday.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-22-i-40-nc-42-garner-ramp-closed.aspx)
Perhaps this is one reason they haven't signed I-42 along the Bypass yet.  Might have been too confusing to some drivers being told take a detour on I-42 East to access NC 42.

I feel like it's gonna be a little confusing for people who aren't very aware regardless, just because they have separate but different I-40 interchanges. One could make this case about US/I-74 but ultimately they'll really only (likely) diverge at one point. These are two completely different 42's, on two completely different roads, in really close proximity to each other and another Interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 23, 2022, 05:52:05 PM
NCDOT and Wilmington officials to have further discussions on funding options for the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge Replacement project this coming Wednesday the 27th.

https://www.wwaytv3.com/wmpo-discusses-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-replacement-funding-options/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 28, 2022, 05:54:59 PM
New bridge (finally) opens along NC 12 in Rodanthe:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-28-rodanthe-bridge-opens.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-28-rodanthe-bridge-opens.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 05, 2022, 08:39:15 AM
It looks like I-40 construction in Orange County may be ramping up soon. There are lots of survey stakes along the roadway, and some cones, barrels and portable DMS are beginning to show up.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on August 05, 2022, 01:25:02 PM
It looks like I-40 construction in Orange County may be ramping up soon. There are lots of survey stakes along the roadway, and some cones, barrels and portable DMS are beginning to show up.

I wish the solo I-85 section in Orange would get attention first. Its narrow and has several substandard ramps. I-40 is okay being 4 lanes total for the time being; at least its already built to modern geometry standards.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 05, 2022, 01:52:49 PM
It looks like I-40 construction in Orange County may be ramping up soon. There are lots of survey stakes along the roadway, and some cones, barrels and portable DMS are beginning to show up.

I wish the solo I-85 section in Orange would get attention first. Its narrow and has several substandard ramps. I-40 is okay being 4 lanes total for the time being; at least its already built to modern geometry standards.
It has to do with traffic volumes.

I-40 gets up to 64,000 AADT on the 4 lane section, I-85 only gets up to 46,000 AADT.

Ultimately, both corridors should be expanded to at least 6 lanes, but I-40 is a higher demand.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 14, 2022, 09:21:35 PM
Third summer taking photos of the Wade Ave. bridge being constructed at I-440.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52286222766_bf21029746_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52286222766_6671551c5b_k.jpg)

In addition to being a tight radius, the future ramp to I-440 looks like it will be rather steep.... I'm guessing they will start to build up the grade a bit beneath the overpass.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52286225803_ea3001f03d_c.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52286225803_1d7b3fe81b_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 14, 2022, 09:31:19 PM
Upcoming public meetings (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/public-meetings/Pages/I-5719-U-5800-2022-08-11.aspx) for widening I-85 in Gaston County north/east of US 321. New project maps are available here (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-85-widening-gaston-county/Pages/august-2022-maps.aspx). Estimated construction 2024-2030.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on August 15, 2022, 01:56:17 PM
Idk if this has been posted but the exit numbers from 264 have been changed to match the new I-587 starting at the US 64 exit, even tho I-587 is only signed up to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 15, 2022, 02:39:04 PM
Wikipedia' Interstate 587 (North Carolina) page hasn't been updated yet to reflect the new exit numbers; neither has bob7374's "Interstate 587 in North Carolina" page. Both probably will be updated soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 15, 2022, 05:59:51 PM
Idk if this has been posted but the exit numbers from 264 have been changed to match the new I-587 starting at the US 64 exit, even tho I-587 is only signed up to I-95.
This was posted earlier on the I-587 thread. Here's the NCDOT link:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-07-27-new-signs-future-i-587.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on August 17, 2022, 08:59:46 AM
Wikipedia' Interstate 587 (North Carolina) page hasn't been updated yet to reflect the new exit numbers; neither has bob7374's "Interstate 587 in North Carolina" page. Both probably will be updated soon.

That is because we do not have a source providing the new exit numbers yet. A lot of editors, myself included, use official NCDOT GIS/Maps, news articles, or Google Streetview, none of which have shown the new exit numbers yet. Anyone can of course add them, but a source of validation helps greatly.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on August 17, 2022, 10:55:11 PM
Wikipedia' Interstate 587 (North Carolina) page hasn't been updated yet to reflect the new exit numbers; neither has bob7374's "Interstate 587 in North Carolina" page. Both probably will be updated soon.
That is because we do not have a source providing the new exit numbers yet. A lot of editors, myself included, use official NCDOT GIS/Maps, news articles, or Google Streetview, none of which have shown the new exit numbers yet. Anyone can of course add them, but a source of validation helps greatly.
Of course, if anyone is driving in the area and wants to document the new exit numbers, I would be happy to have the information to add to my exit list.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 18, 2022, 12:18:27 AM
SC does on I-77:
https://goo.gl/maps/PhgTSHgWzMGqtF9s6

As does West Virginia, further north on I-77, on the southbound side coming down Flat Top Mountain to a sharp curve.

https://goo.gl/maps/T6shorFCE1xnUuey5

And here I am thinking signs like these:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Check_Your_Brakes_on_NY_224_west.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NY_284-17A-94_truck_restriction_sign.jpg

made Upstate New York a little more distinguished.


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 22, 2022, 12:33:07 PM
I-87 northbound TOTSO in Raleigh temporarily closed this morning due to overturned Porta-Potty truck
https://www.wral.com/truck-carrying-portable-toilet-overturns-on-i-440-in-raleigh-messy-cleanup/20427127/

The article indicates that this is the ramp from I-440 westbound -to- I-87 northbound, which is the TOTSO ramp carrying I-87.  It is a two-lane ramp.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on August 22, 2022, 03:25:23 PM
Well that stinks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on August 25, 2022, 04:39:39 PM
Local, State Leaders Break Ground on U.S. 17 Widening Project (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-08-25-local-state-leaders-break-ground-us-17-widening-project.aspx)
Quote
WILLIAMSTON — An $86 million project to widen 10.6 miles of U.S. 17 in Martin and Beaufort counties is officially underway today after a groundbreaking event this morning in Williamston.

Local leaders from Martin and Beaufort counties joined representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation in the ceremony at the intersection of U.S. 17 and Joe Mobley Road.

The project will widen the highway to four lanes from N.C. 171 near the community of Old Ford to the existing four lanes just south of Williamston.

“This improved highway will be a vital corridor for northeastern North Carolina,”  said Joey Hopkins, NCDOT’s Chief Operating Officer. “It will help create economic opportunities for agriculture, manufacturing, military growth and tourism.”

Pre-construction work is already underway on the project, which is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2026.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 25, 2022, 07:57:51 PM
Local, State Leaders Break Ground on U.S. 17 Widening Project (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-08-25-local-state-leaders-break-ground-us-17-widening-project.aspx)
Quote
WILLIAMSTON — An $86 million project to widen 10.6 miles of U.S. 17 in Martin and Beaufort counties is officially underway today after a groundbreaking event this morning in Williamston.

Local leaders from Martin and Beaufort counties joined representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation in the ceremony at the intersection of U.S. 17 and Joe Mobley Road.

The project will widen the highway to four lanes from N.C. 171 near the community of Old Ford to the existing four lanes just south of Williamston.

“This improved highway will be a vital corridor for northeastern North Carolina,”  said Joey Hopkins, NCDOT’s Chief Operating Officer. “It will help create economic opportunities for agriculture, manufacturing, military growth and tourism.”

Pre-construction work is already underway on the project, which is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2026.
This closes the gap in the 4-lane between the Williamston and Washington bypasses.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on August 26, 2022, 08:28:31 AM
Local, State Leaders Break Ground on U.S. 17 Widening Project (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-08-25-local-state-leaders-break-ground-us-17-widening-project.aspx)
Quote
WILLIAMSTON — An $86 million project to widen 10.6 miles of U.S. 17 in Martin and Beaufort counties is officially underway today after a groundbreaking event this morning in Williamston.

Local leaders from Martin and Beaufort counties joined representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation in the ceremony at the intersection of U.S. 17 and Joe Mobley Road.

The project will widen the highway to four lanes from N.C. 171 near the community of Old Ford to the existing four lanes just south of Williamston.

“This improved highway will be a vital corridor for northeastern North Carolina,”  said Joey Hopkins, NCDOT’s Chief Operating Officer. “It will help create economic opportunities for agriculture, manufacturing, military growth and tourism.”

Pre-construction work is already underway on the project, which is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2026.
This closes the gap in the 4-lane between the Williamston and Washington bypasses.

Which means the only part of US 17 that is still 2 lane is between Bridgeton and just south of Chocowinity. It's about a 22 mile stretch. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on August 26, 2022, 04:46:00 PM
Local, State Leaders Break Ground on U.S. 17 Widening Project (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-08-25-local-state-leaders-break-ground-us-17-widening-project.aspx)
Quote
WILLIAMSTON — An $86 million project to widen 10.6 miles of U.S. 17 in Martin and Beaufort counties is officially underway today after a groundbreaking event this morning in Williamston.

Local leaders from Martin and Beaufort counties joined representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation in the ceremony at the intersection of U.S. 17 and Joe Mobley Road.

The project will widen the highway to four lanes from N.C. 171 near the community of Old Ford to the existing four lanes just south of Williamston.

“This improved highway will be a vital corridor for northeastern North Carolina,”  said Joey Hopkins, NCDOT’s Chief Operating Officer. “It will help create economic opportunities for agriculture, manufacturing, military growth and tourism.”

Pre-construction work is already underway on the project, which is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2026.
This closes the gap in the 4-lane between the Williamston and Washington bypasses.

Which means the only part of US 17 that is still 2 lane is between Bridgeton and just south of Chocowinity. It's about a 22 mile stretch. 

I drove both two lane stretches of US 17 a few months ago.  They weren’t terribly clogged with traffic, but each time I traveled on a weekday, so it could be worse during the week.

My biggest issue with US 17 is that it needs to be freeway between Wilmington and Jacksonville, and filling in the freeway gap north of Jacksonville up to Pollocksville would also be nice.  And I assume there are some sort of long-term plans to make it roughly follow NC 43, cross the Neuse River, and essentially bypass New Bern?

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 27, 2022, 09:03:55 AM
Local, State Leaders Break Ground on U.S. 17 Widening Project (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-08-25-local-state-leaders-break-ground-us-17-widening-project.aspx)
Quote
WILLIAMSTON — An $86 million project to widen 10.6 miles of U.S. 17 in Martin and Beaufort counties is officially underway today after a groundbreaking event this morning in Williamston.

Local leaders from Martin and Beaufort counties joined representatives from the N.C. Department of Transportation in the ceremony at the intersection of U.S. 17 and Joe Mobley Road.

The project will widen the highway to four lanes from N.C. 171 near the community of Old Ford to the existing four lanes just south of Williamston.

“This improved highway will be a vital corridor for northeastern North Carolina,”  said Joey Hopkins, NCDOT’s Chief Operating Officer. “It will help create economic opportunities for agriculture, manufacturing, military growth and tourism.”

Pre-construction work is already underway on the project, which is scheduled to be complete by the summer of 2026.
This closes the gap in the 4-lane between the Williamston and Washington bypasses.

Which means the only part of US 17 that is still 2 lane is between Bridgeton and just south of Chocowinity. It's about a 22 mile stretch. 
And I assume there are some sort of long-term plans to make it roughly follow NC 43, cross the Neuse River, and essentially bypass New Bern?

I don't know how the freeway is gonna be extended north of US-70 with that huge quarry right in front of it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 02, 2022, 04:04:47 PM
Upcoming ramp closures at the I-40/Airport Boulevard interchange near RDU Airport as part of the improvements project there. The closures are expected to last until just before Christmas.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-02-airport-boulevard-i-40-ramps-closed.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 02, 2022, 08:20:29 PM
Upcoming ramp closures at the I-40/Airport Boulevard interchange near RDU Airport as part of the improvements project there. The closures are expected to last until just before Christmas.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-02-airport-boulevard-i-40-ramps-closed.aspx
This will be a DDI, which certainly requires all new ramps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 02, 2022, 08:25:47 PM
Upcoming ramp closures at the I-40/Airport Boulevard interchange near RDU Airport as part of the improvements project there. The closures are expected to last until just before Christmas.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-02-airport-boulevard-i-40-ramps-closed.aspx
This will be a DDI, which certainly requires all new ramps.

For the off-ramps, yes.  Parts of the on-ramps will be realigned, but parts of both on-ramps will be retained and just repaved, especially with the WB on-ramp which will keep most of the existing ramp.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on September 05, 2022, 03:08:58 PM
It appears NC 2 south was truncated from NC 5 to US 15-501 in Pinehurst.  Signage still up in May 2022 GMSV.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/07_July/Div08/HTO_063_07-22.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2022, 04:07:41 PM
It appears NC 2 south was truncated from NC 5 to US 15-501 in Pinehurst.  Signage still up in May 2022 GMSV.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/07_July/Div08/HTO_063_07-22.pdf

Note to self to check on this whenever I make it to Pinehurst.  Of course, I already felt that NC 2 was the shortest number route 2 in the country. (NC 5 nearby may be the same.)

Actually, SC 2 is shorter than NC 2 (prior to this anyway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 05, 2022, 10:36:08 PM
It appears NC 2 south was truncated from NC 5 to US 15-501 in Pinehurst.  Signage still up in May 2022 GMSV.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/07_July/Div08/HTO_063_07-22.pdf

Note to self to check on this whenever I make it to Pinehurst.  Of course, I already felt that NC 2 was the shortest number route 2 in the country. (NC 5 nearby may be the same.)

Actually, SC 2 is shorter than NC 2 (prior to this anyway).
Be prepared to be disappointed. It can take 1 to a few years for a route change approved administratively to be reflected in the field. The US 70 change through Greensboro was approved in the fall of 2019 and still is not signed along its new route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 05, 2022, 10:54:14 PM
^Yeah, I ended up clinching NC 55 through Holly Springs recently because that route change still has not been finalized in the field.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on September 07, 2022, 11:36:53 PM
It appears NC 2 south was truncated from NC 5 to US 15-501 in Pinehurst.  Signage still up in May 2022 GMSV.

https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/07_July/Div08/HTO_063_07-22.pdf

Note to self to check on this whenever I make it to Pinehurst.  Of course, I already felt that NC 2 was the shortest number route 2 in the country. (NC 5 nearby may be the same.)

Actually, SC 2 is shorter than NC 2 (prior to this anyway).
Be prepared to be disappointed. It can take 1 to a few years for a route change approved administratively to be reflected in the field. The US 70 change through Greensboro was approved in the fall of 2019 and still is not signed along its new route.


The signage changes isn't going to happen until after Greensboro Urban Loop is completed. That is what I have heard, even though I-840 Loop has nothing to do with the US 70 Signage changes, but that is what I have known so far.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 07, 2022, 11:43:47 PM
NCDOT has revised its 2023-2032 Draft STIP to "reflect new sources of revenue" prior to holding a series of public meetings in each Division over the next several weeks:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-07-ncdot-seeks-stip-project-input.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-07-ncdot-seeks-stip-project-input.aspx)

Good news for some future interstate projects. The Revised STIP now funds upgrading US 74 between Rockingham and Laurinburg to interstate standards (I-74), ROW in 2028 and construction in 2030. Funds upgrading of US 29 to interstate standards (I-795) from the Greensboro Loop to Reidsville with ROW in 2028 and construction in 2031. And funds 2 sections (U-3125C and U-3125D) of US 117 being upgraded to interstate standards (I-795) with ROWs to start in 2026 and 2027 and construction in 2028 and 2029. Perhaps more will be funded in the Final STIP due out next summer.

Link to Revised STP Excel file: https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/resources.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/resources.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 09, 2022, 05:51:04 PM
Beginning this Tuesday, 3 ferry routes will switch to off-season schedules.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-09-fall-ferry-schedules.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-09-fall-ferry-schedules.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on September 09, 2022, 09:02:29 PM
I'm wondering what, if anything, may get done as a result of NASCAR finally landing at North Wilkesboro Speedway again for next year. First and foremost should be consideration for an exit at Fishing Creek Road, something that was bandied about even back when NASCAR was there in the 1990s. Could it possible to have temporary exit ramps at Fishing Creek Road by next May?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 09, 2022, 09:09:12 PM
Detour signs are up for the replacement of the Sugar Loaf Rd bridge in Burke County, less than 1 mile from my home.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 09, 2022, 11:10:38 PM
I'm wondering what, if anything, may get done as a result of NASCAR finally landing at North Wilkesboro Speedway again for next year. First and foremost should be consideration for an exit at Fishing Creek Road, something that was bandied about even back when NASCAR was there in the 1990s. Could it possible to have temporary exit ramps at Fishing Creek Road by next May?

It looks like the NASCAR All-Star Race is a one-time deal to help Dale Jr. (and other investors) get the track going again.  I seriously doubt that the Cup (and huge crowds) will ever return to North Wilkesboro, just because of the stigma of the small tracks.  But some of the other old-timey majors are still in operation, including Five Flags (Pensacola), Nashville, Thompson (Connecticut), South Boston (Virginia), West Virginia (Ona), Oxford Plains (Maine), Langley (Hampton VA), Smoky Mountain (Maryville TN), Kingsport (Tennessee) and Hickory (North Carolina).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 09, 2022, 11:38:08 PM
I'm wondering what, if anything, may get done as a result of NASCAR finally landing at North Wilkesboro Speedway again for next year. First and foremost should be consideration for an exit at Fishing Creek Road, something that was bandied about even back when NASCAR was there in the 1990s. Could it possible to have temporary exit ramps at Fishing Creek Road by next May?
I don’t think it would be possible to add temporary ramps. Both 421 and Fishing Creek Road are very close to the stadium. Providing an exit would require reworking other roads in the area of the stadium.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on September 10, 2022, 09:05:21 AM
I'm wondering what, if anything, may get done as a result of NASCAR finally landing at North Wilkesboro Speedway again for next year. First and foremost should be consideration for an exit at Fishing Creek Road, something that was bandied about even back when NASCAR was there in the 1990s. Could it possible to have temporary exit ramps at Fishing Creek Road by next May?

It looks like the NASCAR All-Star Race is a one-time deal to help Dale Jr. (and other investors) get the track going again.  I seriously doubt that the Cup (and huge crowds) will ever return to North Wilkesboro, just because of the stigma of the small tracks.  But some of the other old-timey majors are still in operation, including Five Flags (Pensacola), Nashville, Thompson (Connecticut), South Boston (Virginia), West Virginia (Ona), Oxford Plains (Maine), Langley (Hampton VA), Smoky Mountain (Maryville TN), Kingsport (Tennessee) and Hickory (North Carolina).

It's more than a one-time thing, with the work SMI and others are going to be doing: https://thewilkesrecord.com/nascar-all-star-race-to-be-on-original-asphalt-p4806-149.htm (https://thewilkesrecord.com/nascar-all-star-race-to-be-on-original-asphalt-p4806-149.htm)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 13, 2022, 05:31:23 AM
NCDOT statement on traffic improvements for North Wilkesboro:

https://twitter.com/BrettBaldeck/status/1569340179105693696

And statement from the NCHP:

https://twitter.com/BrettBaldeck/status/1569343672117858305

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on September 15, 2022, 03:29:27 PM
The NC 86 bridge over I-85 is still closed after a semi-truck crashed into it while heading south on 85 yesterday morning.

https://www.wral.com/nc-86-bridge-over-i-85-near-hillsborough-to-remain-closed-after-fiery-crash/20466735/

I went and saw it today, and the damage to the northern bridge pier looks pretty significant. The bridge is already quite old, and I think there's a chance it won't be open again for a while. Extensive repairs or full replacement may be in order.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 15, 2022, 03:47:12 PM
The NC 86 bridge over I-85 is still closed after a semi-truck crashed into it while heading south on 85 yesterday morning.

https://www.wral.com/nc-86-bridge-over-i-85-near-hillsborough-to-remain-closed-after-fiery-crash/20466735/

I went and saw it today, and the damage to the northern bridge pier looks pretty significant. The bridge is already quite old, and I think there's a chance it won't be open again for a while. Extensive repairs or full replacement may be in order.

But NC 86 is quickly coming up on my NC clinch list.   :banghead:
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 15, 2022, 05:58:28 PM
"North Carolina will receive $100 million in federal grant funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed by President Biden last year to make improvements along the vital corridor of Interstate 85 between Charlotte and the South Carolina line."

"The grant will support the widening of about 10 miles of I-85 in Gaston County from six to eight lanes — relieving traffic congestion on one of the Southeast’s busiest highways, as well as new connections for bicycles and pedestrians along that stretch. It will also enable the installation of broadband infrastructure and electric vehicle charging stations along the route in both Gaston and Cleveland counties."

https://governor.nc.gov/news/press-releases/2022/09/15/governor-cooper-announces-100-million-federal-grant-i-85-corridor-cleveland-gaston-counties
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 15, 2022, 07:50:33 PM
Does this mean that there was $100 million the state was already planning to lay out that can now be moved to other projects?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on September 15, 2022, 09:38:38 PM
Sounds like this project (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/i-85-widening-gaston-county/Pages/default.aspx).  If NCDOT had already budgeted for this project, then yes there may be money that could be moved to other projects but probably not right away...more like a few years down the road depending on when NCDOT planned outlays (i.e. actual spending) for this project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 16, 2022, 08:43:16 PM
Two notable tractor-trailer accidents on I-85 in North Carolina in the past few days.

My wife and I were headed to the Orange County Sportsplex on Wednesday evening when we encountered an improptu detour on NC-86 where the bridge over I-85 was closed.  I've been swamped this week, but now that I am finally getting back to normal we find that the accident occurred after midnight on Tuesday night.  I-85 [westbound] was still down to one lane at noontime today, and I am not sure whether NCDOT will get both lanes open anytime soon.  Almost all of the paint on the span over the southbound lanes was intensely blackened by the fire.

https://www.wral.com/driver-killed-in-fiery-tractor-trailer-crash-on-i-85-near-hillsborough/20464798/

Then early this morning, there was a massive truck fire on I-85 northbound near Butner. 

https://www.wral.com/massive-tractor-trailer-fire-closes-i-85-in-granville-county-for-hours/20470416/

WRAL is trying to update their website today.  Not sure if this is related, but the reporting of these two events is pretty weak.  I will try to find other non-paywalled sources and post them.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 16, 2022, 08:53:10 PM
^^^
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/orange-county-news/tractor-trailer-slams-into-bridge-on-i-85-in-hillsborough-officials-say/
https://chapelboro.com/news/traffic/fatal-tractor-trailer-crash-damages-bridge-south-of-hillsborough-i-85-closed

^^^
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/1-dead-after-car-and-tractor-trailer-collide-on-i-85-in-granville-county/
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/i-85-south-in-granville-county-reopens-after-tractor-trailer-crashes-overturns/

News on this accident in Granville County is pretty weak.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 16, 2022, 10:59:12 PM
NCDOT has revised its 2023-2032 Draft STIP to "reflect new sources of revenue" prior to holding a series of public meetings in each Division over the next several weeks:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-07-ncdot-seeks-stip-project-input.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-09-07-ncdot-seeks-stip-project-input.aspx)

Good news for some future interstate projects. The Revised STIP now funds upgrading US 74 between Rockingham and Laurinburg to interstate standards (I-74), ROW in 2028 and construction in 2030. Funds upgrading of US 29 to interstate standards (I-795) from the Greensboro Loop to Reidsville with ROW in 2028 and construction in 2031. And funds 2 sections (U-3125C and U-3125D) of US 117 being upgraded to interstate standards (I-795) with ROWs to start in 2026 and 2027 and construction in 2028 and 2029. Perhaps more will be funded in the Final STIP due out next summer.

Link to Revised STP Excel file: https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/resources.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/stip/development/Pages/resources.aspx)

I tried to review this revised stip, but 5he spreadsheet just lists line items by project number, never mentioning route or county.  I am looking forward to what is added.  There is now a second higher education campus on the site of Western Piedmont CC in Morganton which will upon opening further tax US 64, at  I-40, exit 103.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on September 17, 2022, 10:44:20 AM
NCDOT statement on traffic improvements for North Wilkesboro:

https://twitter.com/BrettBaldeck/status/1569340179105693696

And statement from the NCHP:

https://twitter.com/BrettBaldeck/status/1569343672117858305

I'm curious as to what they may have in store in regards to this. A good short-term fix would be to widen/straighten out Speedway Road, but I take it that isn't in the cards either
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on September 26, 2022, 09:39:57 PM
My wife and I were headed to the Orange County Sportsplex on Wednesday evening (Sep 14) when we encountered an improptu detour on NC-86 where the bridge over I-85 was closed.  I've been swamped this week, but now that I am finally getting back to normal we find that the accident occurred after midnight on Tuesday night.  I-85 [westbound] was still down to one lane at noontime today, and I am not sure whether NCDOT will get both lanes open anytime soon.  Almost all of the paint on the span over the southbound lanes was intensely blackened by the fire.

The NC-86 bridge over I-85 at the Hampton Pointe exit (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) has finally reopened.  It was still closed as of Friday evening (Sept 23).  "Detour" signs for I-40 (Alternate I-40) have been posted all around the area in advance of the I-40 widening, and it was odd having a real detour on top of it.  Even stranger is that the Alternate I-40 detour on NC-86 northbound is marked for both I-40 westbound (via I-85 southbound) and for I-40 eastbound (via I-85 northbound and the Durham Freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 27, 2022, 04:44:08 PM
I checked with NCDOT on whether the US 264 had reopened at the Pungo Creek Bridge (the closure that kept me from a full clinch of US 264 as posted in April 2022), and NCDOT responded that it has reopened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on September 29, 2022, 08:56:27 PM
Google maps has updated W-S beltline imagery for the ne quadrant.  Dont know have far the pic is behind reality, but now shows a good fraction as paved.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 29, 2022, 09:19:28 PM
^ 4/30/2022 per Google Earth
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on October 06, 2022, 05:55:09 PM
NC 16 widening project nears completion:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-06-nc-16-widening-completion-catawba.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-06-nc-16-widening-completion-catawba.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 08, 2022, 09:55:38 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nashville-rocky-mount-projects/Pages/project-highlights.aspx

I see ground broke already with Google Captioning the new Sunset Avenue Bridge’s  over I-95 retaining walls.
https://goo.gl/maps/SyhVxbLrRBv9SFfn9
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Third Strike on October 09, 2022, 07:22:14 AM
NC 16 widening project nears completion:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-06-nc-16-widening-completion-catawba.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-06-nc-16-widening-completion-catawba.aspx)

It’s not a priority but maybe one day NC 16 could be upgraded as a control-access highway, at least from I-485 to where the recent widening project ended south of Newton. I also remember seeing a project for a bypass around Newton, that would connect to I-40 in the west and NC 16 in the southeast. The Charlotte metro and the Unifour were overdue for an expressway/highway link, other than US 321.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 09, 2022, 11:13:23 AM
I was unable to clinch NC 97 yesterday because the Swift Creek Bridge is closed until July 2022. (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-02-25-edgecombe-county-bridge-replacement.aspx)

Also I noticed that construction is ongoing on part of the US 158 widening around Garysburg. (https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx)  I am unable to see if the routings of US 158, NC 46, and NC 186 will be affected by this project.



US 158 will go to I-95 at the NC 46 interchange to bypass Weldon

I guess I should hold off on any further clinching of US 158 between I-95 and Murfreesboro for the time being then.

Has anyone seen an update on when the current part of this project that is under construction will be complete?  I cannot find anything online other than that only Section A is funded under the current STIP.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 09, 2022, 11:45:17 AM
I wonder if Nashville will be removed as control city for US 64 west on I-95 once the Sunset Interchange is completed in 2023? 

It would seem Nashville should be signed once the exchange at Sunset  is completed for Sunset  as it will become the direct route from I -95 to Nashville.  US 64 does need Raleigh anyway now that the US route is freeway between I-95 and the Capital. Nashville was first considered as US 64 was not all completed freeway between Rocky Mount and Raleigh when I-95 first opened there and being Nashville is the county seat, it was appropriate for the time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on October 11, 2022, 09:39:38 AM
Old NC 12 (since bypassed by the Rodanthe Bridge) is being ripped up by NCDOT: https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/outer-banks-highway-12-s-curves-20221011-khkclil45bgujlqprdmcd2xhzm-story.html

Quote
The notorious “S-curves”  – an eerie stretch of Outer Banks highway that vanishes during storms – is being permanently removed, the North Carolina Department of Transportation says.

Ripping up pavement 12 began Monday, Oct. 10, and should last six weeks, according to a news release.

State officials conceded the fabled “S-Curves”  of N.C. 12 “have long been an iconic part of the N.C. coast,”  but the road is also doomed by rising sea levels.

“The ”˜S-Curves’ area had been one of the most vulnerable sections of N.C. 12, periodically facing ocean overwash that forced closures of the highway during nor’easters and tropical weather events,”  the NCDOT reported.

“In fact, the bypassed area has been covered in water and sand three times in the last month, during tidal surges caused by Hurricanes Earl, Fiona and Ian.”

Once the highway has been erased, the state said it will then surrender the 2-mile stretch to Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, “per NCDOT’s original easement agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.”

The “S-Curves”  became redundant in July, when the state opened the Rodanthe “jug handle”  bridge. The 2.4-mile bridge rises 24.5 feet over the Pamlico Sound, making floods and surge overwash a lot less likely.

[ A lifeline for Hatteras Island: After months of delays, the Outer Banks’ newest bridge finally opens to traffic ]
Today's Top Stories
Today's Top Stories
Daily
Start your morning in-the-know with the day's top stories.

By contrast, the “S-curves”  often put drivers at eye-level with ocean swells, requiring sand dunes to keep waves from covering the pavement.

The “S-curves”  were frequently seen as a barometer for a storm’s strength, based on how fast the road flooded and how deep it was covered by sand. National coverage of hurricanes often included images of “S-Curves”  road signs buried deep in sand.

Reaction to the road’s demise was mixed, with some cheering the move to a safer bridge, while others noted unpredictability is part of the coastal mystique. A few also pointed out removing the road means there’s no backup if the bridge closes.

“Oh, the stories this S-curve could tell if it could talk,”  Robyn Ness wrote on Facebook.

“Good Riddance! Over the 65 yrs of my life here it has caused us to be trapped way too many times,”  Melodi Gray Schwartz posted.

“Many a year we traveled that road.. and many a time we worried about storms,”  Kathy Romano said.

©2022 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 11, 2022, 06:01:33 PM
As sea level rises (and the coast sinks) the sea is opening up the Outer Banks, creating new inlets and fragmenting the islands. There will be more bridges to build in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alps on October 11, 2022, 07:54:34 PM
I find it hard to consider that an S curve. It's a gently almost-straight roadway. But makes sense it's gone.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 14, 2022, 08:00:18 PM
I see that the NB control city at the north end of I-885 for I-85 North is Petersburg.  Ditto on US 158 in Henderson.

Was that always like this?

I could have swore Richmond was previously used.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 14, 2022, 08:10:31 PM
I see that the NB control city at the north end of I-885 for I-85 North is Petersburg.  Ditto on US 158 in Henderson.

Was that always like this?

I could have swore Richmond was previously used.

I believe so actually from what I remember.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 14, 2022, 09:51:47 PM
I see that the NB control city at the north end of I-885 for I-85 North is Petersburg.  Ditto on US 158 in Henderson.

Was that always like this?

I could have swore Richmond was previously used.

I believe so actually from what I remember.

When what is now the 85/885 interchange was completed as a full interchange ca. 2003 (prior to that traffic coming off 70 could only go SB 85), there were dual control cities for NB 85 of Henderson and Petersburg.  Henderson has been dropped only in the past year or so.  At no point since I started traveling the area in late 2001 was Richmond used as a control city from Durham.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 14, 2022, 10:28:05 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/1Mgj4zXu6rsiEX528
It’s used at US 401’s northern terminus.  That’s where I saw it before.

https://www.aaroads.com/nc/085/i-085-n-exit-215-3.jpg
Pull through on I-85 north at US 158 split from AARoads in 2012
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 15, 2022, 11:35:51 AM
I was noticing the convoluted route that NC 42 takes in Wilson and ignoring Tarboro Street in Downtown. I don’t have to guess why, but you think that NC 42 would follow Ward Blvd to the south to overlap US 301 rather than take a long semi circle to the north.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mileage Mike on October 15, 2022, 12:34:20 PM
I was noticing the convoluted route that NC 42 takes in Wilson and ignoring Tarboro Street in Downtown. I don’t have to guess why, but you think that NC 42 would follow Ward Blvd to the south to overlap US 301 rather than take a long semi circle to the north.

My guess would be that it's to make sure Ward Blvd. has a signed State or US Route all the way around. If 42 went the other way then the section between Raleigh Rd. and Nash St. would be unsigned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on October 16, 2022, 07:19:09 AM
Yeah I now see US 264 ALT is part of Ward Blvd, so yes it creates a partial situation where a then sort numbered route number would have to assigned. I don’t think NCDOT would want conflicting numbers, although an alternate bannered NC 42 could work around the Ward Blvd. Loop though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Love2drive on October 17, 2022, 08:10:56 PM
Looks like the improvements to the ramp to get onto US 29 North from Interstate 40  and the highway up to Florida Street are finished. Instead of northbound 29 drivers funneling into a single lane at the exit, you now have two north bound lanes to travel.   The ramp from MLK now has a merge onto 29 instead of having a free lane of travel.  Fortunately they widened the highway so that the merge lane goes all the way to the Florida Street exit.

This won't eliminate the slowdowns and backups on 40 as people try to exit, but should help out a bit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on October 18, 2022, 12:26:00 AM
Looks like the improvements to the ramp to get onto US 29 North from Interstate 40  and the highway up to Florida Street are finished. Instead of northbound 29 drivers funneling into a single lane at the exit, you now have two north bound lanes to travel.   The ramp from MLK now has a merge onto 29 instead of having a free lane of travel.  Fortunately they widened the highway so that the merge lane goes all the way to the Florida Street exit.

This won't eliminate the slowdowns and backups on 40 as people try to exit, but should help out a bit.


Yeah, I drove on that section today and there are still some slowdowns and backups because drivers made last minute turns to try to get to US 29 North. :crazy:

But, you are right. It will not eliminate the slowdowns and backups until that section of I-40 is rebuilt and/or widened (which is scheduled to happen sometime after 2033 for now).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 19, 2022, 09:29:55 PM
Following the end of the NC State Fair on Sunday NCDOT will begin work on a project to create a grade separation at Blue Ridge Road and Hillsborough Street (NC 54). This is a notoriously crowded intersection near the Fairgrounds and the PNC Arena.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 19, 2022, 09:30:41 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-19-section-blue-ridge-road-close-work.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 19, 2022, 09:47:10 PM
Following the end of the NC State Fair on Sunday NCDOT will begin work on a project to create a grade separation at Blue Ridge Road and Hillsborough Street (NC 54). This is a notoriously crowded intersection near the Fairgrounds and the PNC Arena.

It's amazing that this has taken so long.  We had to design the TTA Regional Rail project to "accommodate the possibility that the Blue Ridge Road grade separation would not yet be complete".  The TTA Regional Rail design was completed in June 2006, and if the project had continued, would have been constructed by mid-2009.  At the time, it seemed likely that the grade separation project would be underway before then. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 20, 2022, 06:38:11 AM
Following the end of the NC State Fair on Sunday NCDOT will begin work on a project to create a grade separation at Blue Ridge Road and Hillsborough Street (NC 54). This is a notoriously crowded intersection near the Fairgrounds and the PNC Arena.

It's amazing that this has taken so long.  We had to design the TTA Regional Rail project to "accommodate the possibility that the Blue Ridge Road grade separation would not yet be complete".  The TTA Regional Rail design was completed in June 2006, and if the project had continued, would have been constructed by mid-2009.  At the time, it seemed likely that the grade separation project would be underway before then. 

Well that explains why I saw very little construction in that area while scouting for the RDU Meet I held during the summer.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 20, 2022, 11:38:25 PM
Following the end of the NC State Fair on Sunday NCDOT will begin work on a project to create a grade separation at Blue Ridge Road and Hillsborough Street (NC 54). This is a notoriously crowded intersection near the Fairgrounds and the PNC Arena.

It's amazing that this has taken so long.  We had to design the TTA Regional Rail project to "accommodate the possibility that the Blue Ridge Road grade separation would not yet be complete".  The TTA Regional Rail design was completed in June 2006, and if the project had continued, would have been constructed by mid-2009.  At the time, it seemed likely that the grade separation project would be underway before then. 

Well that explains why I saw very little construction in that area while scouting for the RDU Meet I held during the summer.

Not sure what you mean by "very little construction in that area".  Less than a mile east of there is the reconstruction of the I-440 Beltline.  It was a madhouse of major construction when I went through there a week ago, with lots of new flyovers at the interchange of the Beltline with the Wade Avenue Freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on October 21, 2022, 08:31:15 AM
^ Maybe he was referring specifically to Blue Ride & Hillsborough?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 23, 2022, 03:35:48 PM
^ Maybe he was referring specifically to Blue Ride & Hillsborough?


Yes, I was referring to that intersection specifically.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on October 25, 2022, 05:00:45 PM
On 8/22/22, US 17 Bus south in Pollocksville was approved to be truncated to the US 17/NC 58 interchange - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/08_August/Div02/HTO_052_08-22.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 25, 2022, 06:41:13 PM
On 8/22/22, US 17 Bus south in Pollocksville was approved to be truncated to the US 17/NC 58 interchange - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/08_August/Div02/HTO_052_08-22.pdf

Well it looks like we are already good in regard to Travel Mapping if I am looking at this correctly.  (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3260.msg22448#msg22448)

And secondly, I guess this makes it more likely that I clinch the US 17 Business Routes in NC separate from my planned US 17 clinch (similar to what I did for US 13 on the Eastern Shore of VA).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 26, 2022, 10:39:16 AM
The new "S-Bridge" (US-17 Business) in Hertford is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-25-hertford-s-bridge-opens-traffic.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-25-hertford-s-bridge-opens-traffic.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 26, 2022, 10:44:16 AM
The new "S-Bridge" (US-17 Business) in Hertford is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-25-hertford-s-bridge-opens-traffic.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-25-hertford-s-bridge-opens-traffic.aspx)
On 8/22/22, US 17 Bus south in Pollocksville was approved to be truncated to the US 17/NC 58 interchange - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/08_August/Div02/HTO_052_08-22.pdf

Well it looks like we are already good in regard to Travel Mapping if I am looking at this correctly.  (https://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=3260.msg22448#msg22448)

And secondly, I guess this makes it more likely that I clinch the US 17 Business Routes in NC separate from my planned US 17 clinch (similar to what I did for US 13 on the Eastern Shore of VA).

And this makes it slightly less likely.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 28, 2022, 03:39:10 PM
NCDOT has decided that its proposed 4-laning of NC 55 in Harnett County (south of Raleigh) will include a bypass of Angier.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2018/2018-07-09-alternative-for-the-n-c--55-widening-in-wake-harnett-selected.aspx

A contract for the first half of the project has been awarded. Work will begin in the spring, and completion is expected by the end of 2026. A contract for the second half will be awarded sometime in the spring.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-28-nc-55-widening.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-28-nc-55-widening.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 31, 2022, 10:23:20 PM
NCDOT is launching a project to replace a pair of bridges on I-40 near the top of the Pigeon River Gorge. The bridges cross White Oak Road and the Wright Branch of the Pigeon River. Old and substandard with no shoulders, these bridges certainly need replacement. I-40 will be limited to one lane in each direction for at least six months, a major traffic bottleneck.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-10-28-major-I-40-bridge-project-haywood-county.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 02, 2022, 03:09:26 PM
Upcoming closures at the I-440/Western Blvd interchange due to demolition work as part of the I-440 improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-02-western-boulevard-i-440-beltline-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-02-western-boulevard-i-440-beltline-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 03, 2022, 07:43:05 AM
As part of the I-40 widening project south of Raleigh, preparations are being made for a traffic shift onto the new I-40 East bridges over US-70 Business in Garner later this month.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-02-i-40-us-70-white-oak-ramp-closed.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-02-i-40-us-70-white-oak-ramp-closed.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WillWeaverRVA on November 16, 2022, 12:02:15 PM
NC 59 has been decommissioned.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-16-nc-59-cumberland-county.aspx?fbclid=IwAR1dbatecfi1lBqrYQemPxqtk5hXASUgQO6PDXWVz18Z3C125nzqp-Ya2AY
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 16, 2022, 07:42:22 PM
NC 59 has been decommissioned.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-16-nc-59-cumberland-county.aspx?fbclid=IwAR1dbatecfi1lBqrYQemPxqtk5hXASUgQO6PDXWVz18Z3C125nzqp-Ya2AY

I would've thought they might consider extending NC 71 to replace NC 59 between US 301 and I-95.

In other news the EB US 74 Bus split in Shelby is being decommissioned - https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/gisdot/DOTDELetters/2022/10_October/Div12/HTO_023_10-22.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 18, 2022, 07:37:09 PM
A question. In Fayetteville the MLK Freeway ends in a half diamond at Ramsey Street. Is there/was there a plan to extend it to I-95?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 18, 2022, 09:24:49 PM
A question. In Fayetteville the MLK Freeway ends in a half diamond at Ramsey Street. Is there/was there a plan to extend it to I-95?

1968 Cumberland County map shows the north extension to take a sharp dive southeast back to US 301.  The south end was initially planned to be further north along US 301 than the NC 87 interchange area:

(http://www.vahighways.com/MLKfwy_1968.jpg)

The 1972 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8231/rec/32 - shows the southern end synching up with NC 87 and no change to northern end.

The 1980 Cumberland County map - https://dc.lib.unc.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/ncmaps/id/8681/rec/35 -  no longer shows a proposed extension northward.

To see a bigger context of what Fayetteville envisioned, see page 55 of the Owen Dr Freeway EIS - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556030147805&view=1up&seq=55  - the sharp turn at the Cape Fear River on the northern extension is really a new route for US 401

The history of the CBD Loop does not mention what happened to the northern extension in the EIS for the southern extension - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556031254923&view=1up&seq=20
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on November 19, 2022, 05:44:33 PM
So the northern extension of what is now the MLK Freeway was never considered seriously and it isn’t likely to be considered now. The abrupt end of the freeway is almost half a century old.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on November 30, 2022, 01:02:17 PM
A much needed improvement in Goldsboro (my old stomping grounds) is FINALLY happening.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-30-goldsboro-intersection-contract.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-11-30-goldsboro-intersection-contract.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 02, 2022, 10:01:07 PM
The NCDOT Traffic Survey Group (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Pages/Traffic-Survey-Group.aspx) have released a couple of new resources to the public for viewing traffic data: the Traffic Count Database System (https://ncdot.ms2soft.com/) (TCDS) and the Traffic Viewer (https://ncdot.public.ms2soft.com/tdms.ui_core/trafficviewer). With the TCDS, "a customer can view the collected and processed traffic data values with the ability to run a report, view a graph, and export historical data." The Traffic Viewer is a mobile-friendly version of the TCDS.

Announcement (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/State-Mapping/Documents/NCDOT_2021_AADT_Publication_Notification_Release_11-17-2022.pdf)

Here is an example of hourly volumes from a continuous count station the Wednesday before Thanksgiving.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52539300700_9f88940ea1_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52539300700_79adecc264_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 10, 2022, 11:16:34 AM
AASHTO finally released their result for both meetings and, as always, North Carolina had a small list of changes. Here is the list finally, most of which we all knew.

Spring 2022
Annual 2022
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on December 10, 2022, 03:36:45 PM
AASHTO finally released their result for both meetings and, as always, North Carolina had a small list of changes. Here is the list finally, most of which we all knew.

Spring 2022
  • Future I-685 - Establishment
  • I-885 - Establishment
  • U.S. Route 70 Bypass - Deletion (no specifics yet if either or both)
Annual 2022
  • I-840 - Extension
  • U.S. Route 258 Business (Farmville) - Deletion

Is there still a plan to have 840 go all the way around the loop or just over the northern half?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on December 10, 2022, 04:43:52 PM
AASHTO finally released their result for both meetings and, as always, North Carolina had a small list of changes. Here is the list finally, most of which we all knew.

Spring 2022
  • Future I-685 - Establishment
  • I-885 - Establishment
  • U.S. Route 70 Bypass - Deletion (no specifics yet if either or both)
Annual 2022
  • I-840 - Extension
  • U.S. Route 258 Business (Farmville) - Deletion

Is there still a plan to have 840 go all the way around the loop or just over the northern half?


Just the northern half.  I do not believe it was ever planned to be on the southern half.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 10, 2022, 05:27:51 PM
Is there still a plan to have 840 go all the way around the loop or just over the northern half?
Just the northern half.  I do not believe it was ever planned to be on the southern half.

Correct, it was never going to make a complete loop, just the northern half. This makes sense, NCDOT years ago removed I-440 from being a full loop around Raleigh to a half loop because it was deemed unnecessary as I-40 was the other half.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 12, 2022, 11:57:12 AM
NCDOT has accelerated the proposed start of the second half of the Hampstead Bypass project:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-12-ncdot-wmpo-agree-draft-stip.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-12-ncdot-wmpo-agree-draft-stip.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2022, 08:49:34 PM
I know how to find downtown Greensboro, having been there many times, but it might be harder for drivers who don’t know the city since there are no numbered routes leading downtown. NC 6 came close until it was decommissioned for some reason in 2005. FWIW I suggest returning US 220 to his historic route through town, eliminating its ridiculous and useless dance around three sides of the central city.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on December 19, 2022, 08:43:51 AM
On my way to work this morning, I notice 264 Alt between Farmville and Greenville is now just 264. I guess they finally decided the drop the Alt for the entire route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2022, 12:17:03 PM
On my way to work this morning, I notice 264 Alt between Farmville and Greenville is now just 264. I guess they finally decided the drop the Alt for the entire route.

Yeah, AASHTO approved NCDOT's request for it last year.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 19, 2022, 01:30:25 PM
On my way to work this morning, I notice 264 Alt between Farmville and Greenville is now just 264. I guess they finally decided the drop the Alt for the entire route.

Yeah, AASHTO approved NCDOT's request for it last year.

I believe it is still ALT US 264 through Downtown Wilson and of course west of I-95 where I-587 is still Future I-587.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 19, 2022, 02:03:02 PM
On my way to work this morning, I notice 264 Alt between Farmville and Greenville is now just 264. I guess they finally decided the drop the Alt for the entire route.

Yeah, AASHTO approved NCDOT's request for it last year.

I believe it is still ALT US 264 through Downtown Wilson and of course west of I-95 where I-587 is still Future I-587.

It is for now, but it'll probably change as well once the rest of the I-587 upgrades between Sims and Zebulon are finished.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on December 26, 2022, 08:56:13 PM
I was on I-485 southern section today, and noticed new signs for the Rea Rd exit now include NC 84 East. I researched when i got home, and found there is a project to extend Rea Rd past Providence Rd to connect directly to Weddington Rd, but i cannot find anything to confirm NC 84 will be extended over Rea Rd once that is complete.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 26, 2022, 09:33:06 PM
I was on I-485 southern section today, and noticed new signs for the Rea Rd exit now include NC 84 East. I researched when i got home, and found there is a project to extend Rea Rd past Providence Rd to connect directly to Weddington Rd, but i cannot find anything to confirm NC 84 will be extended over Rea Rd once that is complete.


http://files.leagueathletics.com/Images/Club/1880/HWY%2084%20Update%20June%2020%202017.pdf

The project have not begun yet or is still under construction, but the link above was from 2017 that mentioned about extending NC 84.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on December 26, 2022, 11:18:32 PM
I was on I-485 southern section today, and noticed new signs for the Rea Rd exit now include NC 84 East. I researched when i got home, and found there is a project to extend Rea Rd past Providence Rd to connect directly to Weddington Rd, but i cannot find anything to confirm NC 84 will be extended over Rea Rd once that is complete.


http://files.leagueathletics.com/Images/Club/1880/HWY%2084%20Update%20June%2020%202017.pdf

The project have not begun yet or is still under construction, but the link above was from 2017 that mentioned about extending NC 84.

Unless I just missed it, I'm not seeing at that link anything showing NC 84 going west of NC 16.  The I-485 postings of NC 84 go back to at least June 2022, yet the NC 84 END sign at NC 16 is still there as of Nov 2022.... 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2022, 12:48:53 PM
Annual toll increases for the Triangle and Monroe expressways.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-28-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-28-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on January 02, 2023, 03:29:03 PM
I've posted my annual year-in-review about progress during 2022 in building I-73/I-74 and NC's newest and future interstates to the Gribblenation blog: http://www.gribblenation.org/2023/01/i-73i-74-and-nc-future-interstates-year.html (http://www.gribblenation.org/2023/01/i-73i-74-and-nc-future-interstates-year.html)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: orulz on January 03, 2023, 01:44:49 PM
Annual toll increases for the Triangle and Monroe expressways.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-28-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-12-28-annual-toll-rate-increase.aspx)
Lately I have noticed new posts next to the signs along NC540 that shows which toll passes are interoperable. The posts are larger and spaced further apart, so they appear to be about to add new, larger signs, which probably means that new interop partner(s) are about to drop.

I wonder if the long-rumored TxTag compatibility is about to go live. Or, perhaps Palmetto Pass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on January 04, 2023, 09:39:56 AM
https://www.equipmentworld.com/better-roads/article/15293796/business-groups-push-for-future-i685-in-north-carolina
Last Summer this article came out. Hope the feelings expressed in it died.  We already have I-40 connecting Greensboro and Wilmington with a possibility of I-74 going there. 3 interstates would be too much.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on January 04, 2023, 09:32:13 PM
Federal funding announced for US-64 Alligator River bridge replacement between Tyrrell County and Dare County:  https://www.wral.com/n-carolina-getting-110m-for-replacement-bridge-on-us-64/20654934/

I am surprised that new Alligator River bridge will still be only 2 lanes wide (plus bike lanes).  Indeed, it is a very long structure (about 3.2 miles), but it is also part of the remaining 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor that is the only section of US-64 that has not been four-laned out to the Outer Banks.  Not that this really matters, but that is the only remaining section of two-lane on US-64 all the way out to Siler City.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 04, 2023, 10:29:46 PM
I find it interesting that about a decade ago, NCDOT was planning a long-term project to widen the remainder of US-64 to a four lane divided highway which included replacing the Alligator River Bridge with a single-structure 4 lane bridge with full outside shoulders.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-64-dare-tyrrell/Pages/default.aspx

I’m curious if long term plans with this most recent project have provisions for a future parallel 2nd bridge for a total of 4 lanes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 04, 2023, 10:36:36 PM
Federal funding announced for US-64 Alligator River bridge replacement between Tyrrell County and Dare County:  https://www.wral.com/n-carolina-getting-110m-for-replacement-bridge-on-us-64/20654934/

I am surprised that new Alligator River bridge will still be only 2 lanes wide (plus bike lanes).  Indeed, it is a very long structure (about 3.2 miles), but it is also part of the remaining 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor that is the only section of US-64 that has not been four-laned out to the Outer Banks.  Not that this really matters, but that is the only remaining section of two-lane on US-64 all the way out to Siler City.
It is disappointing that it will still be two lanes but it will be great to eliminate the swing span. Four lanes would require over half a billion dollars.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 05, 2023, 12:50:03 AM
Federal funding announced for US-64 Alligator River bridge replacement between Tyrrell County and Dare County:  https://www.wral.com/n-carolina-getting-110m-for-replacement-bridge-on-us-64/20654934/

I am surprised that new Alligator River bridge will still be only 2 lanes wide (plus bike lanes).  Indeed, it is a very long structure (about 3.2 miles), but it is also part of the remaining 30 miles between Columbia and Manns Harbor that is the only section of US-64 that has not been four-laned out to the Outer Banks.  Not that this really matters, but that is the only remaining section of two-lane on US-64 all the way out to Siler City.
It is disappointing that it will still be two lanes but it will be great to eliminate the swing span. Four lanes would require over half a billion dollars.

I think it will just be two lane bridge for now and then build an additional bridge later. I guess NCDOT is trying to save money. Everything is so expensive these days.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on January 05, 2023, 07:49:13 AM
The US 64 widening projects in Dare and Tyrrell counties have always scored too low in the prioritization process to make it into the STIP. Add in the huge environmental impact, wetlands mitigation, wildlife concerns, etc. and any funded widening project would have likely faced years of legal battles. THEN add in NCDOT's budgeting issues and the never-ending inflation of the last few years.

https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement/Documents/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement-categorical-exclusion.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement/Documents/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement-west-end-tyrrell-county-map.pdf
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement/Documents/lindsay-warren-bridge-replacement-east-end-dare-county-map.pdf

I think NCDOT may finally be realizing they can't four-lane every highway to every nook and cranny of the state. Take the recent "Corridor K" projects that are moving forward on the other end of the state. After decades of the project going nowhere, they abandoned four-lanes due to lawsuits and costs and are proceeding with the less costly and environmentally damaging alternatives.

https://www.southernenvironment.org/news/corridor-k-broad-coalition-celebrates-long-fought-win-for-right-sized-road/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on January 05, 2023, 10:41:36 AM



NCDOT already knows that. The only difference was that Corridor K was to be 4 laned. That part of Corridor K is very mountainous and goes through some natural parks. No need to widen that part road to 4 lanes. Just leave it as it is and make improvements to it.

Some roads should just be left as is (especially in the mountains). Making improvements are fine, but why widening it? There are alternatives to take traffic around.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 17, 2023, 01:50:06 PM
The US 17 BUS (Washington, NC) bridge replacement is expected to be complete and open in May ending the detour that has been in place since November 30, 2021. (https://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2023/01/12/highway-17-bridge-replacement-is-on-track-to-finish-by-may-2023/)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on January 19, 2023, 04:00:27 PM
I contacted NCDOT to see if the Military Cutoff Road may be open when I drive through Wilmington, and the response I received was that it will not be open until Fall.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2023, 12:44:33 AM
Didn’t want to revive an old thread (the actual Monroe Expressway thread) here… but I drove down the Monroe Expressway (US-74 Bypass) toll road southeast of Charlotte this past weekend… quite a nice road.

And let me just say… it seemed like quite the speed trap for Union County!

I drove it southbound between I-485 and US-601, then northbound an hour or so later, and both times, at least 3-4 county police set up on the top of the ramps, or at the toll plazas (little emergency pull offs), and both directions I passed at least 2 people pulled over. All in all, about 20 miles driven, and passed probably 9-10 police at various places, either pulling someone over or waiting to pull someone over. Set up on a wide open rural freeway with light traffic. I bet they wish it was 55 mph instead of 65 mph. This probably tops anything I’ve seen in notorious places like Emporia or Hopewell, VA. I wonder how it is during peak summer months. Anybody else have experience with this highway?

I have never seen that much concentration of police on one ~10 mile segment of rural freeway until this.

And they still won’t raise the speed limit to 70 mph (it’s posted 65 mph,) yet the much busier and more congested I-485 just north of there is 70 mph, including through an active work zone with narrow lanes and lane shifts. It was definitely tempting to go 75-80 mph here, it’s such a nice roadway, but with that much police concentration I kept it at only 5 over.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: chrisdiaz on February 21, 2023, 08:44:57 AM
The Monroe Bypass is definitely tempting to speed on, I'm always worried that with the tolls they're able to track how fast you're going (which they can) and then issue you a ticket (which to my knowledge has not been done yet, at least on this particular road).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on February 21, 2023, 08:53:42 AM
The Monroe Bypass is definitely tempting to speed on, I'm always worried that with the tolls they're able to track how fast you're going (which they can) and then issue you a ticket (which to my knowledge has not been done yet, at least on this particular road).
I’ve wondered the same on the tolled portion of 540. I know it’s not a practice employed by the state at the moment, but I imagine the logistics would not be hard to figure out. Legal issues are a whole other can of worms, which is likely why it hasn’t yet happened.


iPhone
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on February 21, 2023, 07:37:25 PM
Didn’t want to revive an old thread (the actual Monroe Expressway thread) here… but I drove down the Monroe Expressway (US-74 Bypass) toll road southeast of Charlotte this past weekend… quite a nice road.

And let me just say… it seemed like quite the speed trap for Union County!

I drove it southbound between I-485 and US-601, then northbound an hour or so later, and both times, at least 3-4 county police set up on the top of the ramps, or at the toll plazas (little emergency pull offs), and both directions I passed at least 2 people pulled over. All in all, about 20 miles driven, and passed probably 9-10 police at various places, either pulling someone over or waiting to pull someone over. Set up on a wide open rural freeway with light traffic. I bet they wish it was 55 mph instead of 65 mph. This probably tops anything I’ve seen in notorious places like Emporia or Hopewell, VA. I wonder how it is during peak summer months. Anybody else have experience with this highway?

I have never seen that much concentration of police on one ~10 mile segment of rural freeway until this.

And they still won’t raise the speed limit to 70 mph (it’s posted 65 mph,) yet the much busier and more congested I-485 just north of there is 70 mph, including through an active work zone with narrow lanes and lane shifts. It was definitely tempting to go 75-80 mph here, it’s such a nice roadway, but with that much police concentration I kept it at only 5 over.

Definitely a lot of bears along that stretch.

Exhibit A (https://goo.gl/maps/3kHBcdeJk33qbd7e7)
Exhibit B (https://goo.gl/maps/jsm59d748UyBuYzd8)
Exhibit C (https://goo.gl/maps/j419A8s3Qz8h1EwU6)

There's always a trooper on 540 the few times a year I use it. It's now engrained in my brain to keep it under 5 over. There's always a trooper on the I-95 Express Lanes south of D.C. when I use those too. Probably just easier pickins on the toll roads, but the above sounds like it may have been a saturation patrol. Raleigh P.D. will do that about once a year on 440 and it's a free-for-all the other 364 days.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2023, 08:14:36 PM
^ I’m not sure what the occasion was that particular day, but it was definitely saturation! It’s one thing to see a cop every once in a while driving, as someone who does a number of long distance trips throughout the year, it’s normal, but to see that amount of police on a short stretch, in a short time frame, was something like I’ve never seen, and so much so I felt the need to post about it. And from when I drove it this weekend, it was all county police, not state highway patrol.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on February 21, 2023, 08:17:53 PM
If they didn't have those gantries to hide behind then they would probably be on the embankments  :-D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 22, 2023, 01:31:54 PM
NC Dot has been doing about a week of heavy survey work at exit 118 of I40, not seeing anything on the Stip any time soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 1995hoo on February 22, 2023, 05:03:48 PM
The Monroe Bypass is definitely tempting to speed on, I'm always worried that with the tolls they're able to track how fast you're going (which they can) and then issue you a ticket (which to my knowledge has not been done yet, at least on this particular road).
I’ve wondered the same on the tolled portion of 540. I know it’s not a practice employed by the state at the moment, but I imagine the logistics would not be hard to figure out. Legal issues are a whole other can of worms, which is likely why it hasn’t yet happened.

It wouldn't be difficult at all because they know what the distance is between toll gantries, so they know what the minimum amount of time it should take would be if you were driving exactly on the speed limit. Then all they have to do is compare that time to how long it took your transponder to pass each gantry. Too short a time could equal a ticket if they chose to do this. Toll-by-plate users presumably wouldn't be exempt; the UK already uses a system called "average speed check" in motorway work zones, whereby there are multiple cameras that read your license plate and then calculate how long it took you to drive between them. They use that system to combat the obvious habit many drivers have (I admit I'm one of them, at least on certain roads) of slowing down to pass a known speed camera location and then speeding back up afterwards.

There's no real reason why it wouldn't be legal to do that. The bigger issue is the extent to which it would discourage people from using the toll roads or, for roads that still accept cash (if there are any), from using electronic toll collection systems. In theory, on a ticket-system road that only reads your transponder upon entry and exit (and not all of them are set up that way–Florida's Turnpike, for one, no longer works that way), you could potentially circumvent this sort of thing by stopping at a service area for the necessary amount of time, but that seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 10:59:06 AM
N.C. appeals court upholds bridge plan for northern Outer Banks (https://www.pilotonline.com/news/transportation/outer-banks-bridge-plan-20230223-i6gdrnluy5gpjpppvblalz2i5a-story.html)
Quote
RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal appeals court upheld on Thursday the decision by state and U.S. transportation officials to build a toll bridge connecting North Carolina’s mainland and the northern Outer Banks.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, agreed with a 2021 trial court ruling that sided with the state Transportation Department, the Federal Highway Administration and agency officials seeking to construct the Mid-Currituck Bridge.

The proposed 7-mile, $500 million project includes a 4.7-mile toll bridge crossing the Currituck Sound between Aydlett and Corolla. Proponents say it would benefit Outer Banks residents and vacationers, particularly during hurricane evacuation. It also would ease traffic at the only other sound crossing – the Wright Memorial Bridge linking Kitty Hawk and Point Harbor.

Citizens’ advocacy and wildlife groups represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center sued in 2019. They argued the agencies didn’t follow the rules in making its decision, specifically with the required environmental analysis.

Writing the unanimous opinion, Circuit Judge Albert Diaz agreed with the decision by U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan. Diaz wrote the agencies didn’t need to file a supplemental environmental impact statement to the one originally completed in 2012 after project funding delays. Instead, a statement reevaluation by the agencies found no significant issues.

The plaintiffs argued that sea-level rise and lower traffic forecasts for the bridge in part warranted another deep examination. How the agencies examined a “no-build”  alternative to constructing the bridge also didn’t violate federal law, Diaz wrote.

The Southern Environmental Law Center diminished Thursday’s ruling, saying the 2012 statement is so outdated that federal regulations require additional scrutiny. The group said the project cost, which it tagged at $602 million, remains unfunded and the project lacks several other permits.

“North Carolina has many unmet transportation needs along its coast, but the Mid-Currituck Bridge is not one of them.”  said Kym Meyer, a Southern Environmental Law Center attorney who argued the case before the panel in December. “We will continue to work to ensure that North Carolina money is not wasted on this costly, unwise project.”

The state Transportation Department didn’t immediately provide a comment Thursday on the ruling. A DOT webpage highlighting the project lists the construction start and completion dates as yet to be determined.

The project would be paid for with tolls and other revenue bonds, state matching funds and federal loans, according to the agency.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 25, 2023, 04:16:51 PM
Does anyone know if I-40 between Durham and Raleigh is going to be improved anytime soon?

For the state's 1st or 2nd busiest highway it's quite crappy with just an old guardrail for a median barrier.

Does the rebuilding of the airport exits portend any improvements to I-40 itself?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on March 05, 2023, 06:03:55 PM
Does anyone know if I-40 between Durham and Raleigh is going to be improved anytime soon?

For the state's 1st or 2nd busiest highway it's quite crappy with just an old guardrail for a median barrier.

Does the rebuilding of the airport exits portend any improvements to I-40 itself?

A eastbound auxiliary lane between 284 and 285 is basically built, but not opened, as part of the Airport Blvd (284) DDI project.  The Aviation interchange project built the WB aux lane a few years ago.

There's an auxiliary lane project between 285 and 287 (Aviation to Harrison, I believe both directions) that I thought was in the STIP.  (I'm out of NCDOT about a year now and haven't kept up with projects like I did before.) 

I mentioned to the then Division Engineer before COVID when Aviation was being rebuilt (and Airport was just about to start) that those were the projects that should have improved those sections of I-40 to widen the inside two lanes to the proper 12', and install a concrete barrier.  But it was too late.  Hopefully not for the next project.  (If I'm still around and not senile, I'll make a public comment to that effect for the auxiliary lane project.)

The widening of the Wake County section (289-283) was done using maintenance funds by a previous Division Engineer "on the sly", frankly not meeting many regulations/standards, including lane widths and pavement structure.  (I do not believe appropriate environmental studies were done, either.)  I am surprised that FHWA hasn't required that section to be upgraded as they have done for many other interstate sections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 05, 2023, 09:38:30 PM
^ Is it possible that they received a design exemption from FHWA for that widening?  I ask that because MnDOT received such for the recent widening of I-35W near and south of downtown Minneapolis.  Those are not standard lane widths or shoulders.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on March 05, 2023, 09:51:46 PM
^ Is it possible that they received a design exemption from FHWA for that widening?  I ask that because MnDOT received such for the recent widening of I-35W near and south of downtown Minneapolis.  Those are not standard lane widths or shoulders.

I'm not sure FHWA reviewed or approved the project back circa 2000.  (I was not involved in projects then as I was the last 20+ years.)  Most projects with "design exceptions" for interstates that I worked on had them requiring future projects on the books (at least offiicially introduced, if not actually funded) to remedy the exception.  Some minor ones, like shoulder clearance next to bridge piers, have approval until the bridge is replaced, and then is to be "fixed".

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 06, 2023, 12:45:36 AM
Does anyone know if I-40 between Durham and Raleigh is going to be improved anytime soon?

For the state's 1st or 2nd busiest highway it's quite crappy with just an old guardrail for a median barrier.

Does the rebuilding of the airport exits portend any improvements to I-40 itself?

A eastbound auxiliary lane between 284 and 285 is basically built, but not opened, as part of the Airport Blvd (284) DDI project.  The Aviation interchange project built the WB aux lane a few years ago.

There's an auxiliary lane project between 285 and 287 (Aviation to Harrison, I believe both directions) that I thought was in the STIP.  (I'm out of NCDOT about a year now and haven't kept up with projects like I did before.) 

I mentioned to the then Division Engineer before COVID when Aviation was being rebuilt (and Airport was just about to start) that those were the projects that should have improved those sections of I-40 to widen the inside two lanes to the proper 12', and install a concrete barrier.  But it was too late.  Hopefully not for the next project.  (If I'm still around and not senile, I'll make a public comment to that effect for the auxiliary lane project.)

The widening of the Wake County section (289-283) was done using maintenance funds by a previous Division Engineer "on the sly", frankly not meeting many regulations/standards, including lane widths and pavement structure.  (I do not believe appropriate environmental studies were done, either.)  I am surprised that FHWA hasn't required that section to be upgraded as they have done for many other interstate sections.


Thanks. That's an interesting back story to why that stretch of I-40 is so sub-par. I guess the 11' inside lanes were necessary to keep as much distance as possible from the other side seeing as how there's no concrete median barrier.

If there aren't any upoming uopgrades, we should all suggest a better median as a priority to NCDOT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 12, 2023, 11:20:10 AM
Bob does the North Carolina Future Interstates year-in-review.  I like to do the NC Rail Year in Review.  A look back at some of the major milestones NCbyTrain reached in 2022 - and a look at some of the regional and local rail expansion projects that are still a number of years away.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/03/nc-by-train-has-record-2022-but-further.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 12, 2023, 12:08:53 PM
Bob does the North Carolina Future Interstates year-in-review.  I like to do the NC Rail Year in Review.  A look back at some of the major milestones NCbyTrain reached in 2022 - and a look at some of the regional and local rail expansion projects that are still a number of years away.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/03/nc-by-train-has-record-2022-but-further.html

Lots of good info there, thanks.

It seems like one of the biggest hurdles for widespread commuter rail is the freight companies. The rails are in place to have passenger service to almost anywhere in the state, but NS and CSX refusing to share right-of-way really screws everything up for everyone. There could be a fast Charlotte-Wilmington service along the former SAL, but CSX would never let that happen. The NS line up the 77 corridor, as mentioned in the article, would be a great commuter rail option. There is hardly any freight traffic on that line, but god forbid NS having to share. (Another good argument for rail nationalization, but i digress).

The only service I could see potentially gaining permission from NS anytime soon is Charlotte-Asheville. The line doesn't have any thru-freight traffic anymore, so there is hardly an argument against it. The line is in good shape and already has a connection to the rest of the system at Salisbury.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 14, 2023, 09:47:04 PM
Southeast of Greensboro US 421 was diverted onto the Outer Loop (I-85) leaving an orphan segment of ex-421 between I-85 and I-40. This segment was tossed into the secondary system, so it has no visible route number signage. At the north end I-40 Exit 222 is marked “Sanford”  but at the ends of the exit ramps there are no signs indicating which way to turn to go to Sanford. At the south end there’s a big sign for the ramp to the Outer Loop but no sign indicating that straight ahead the road goes to Greensboro. That seems like a significant failure of signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 15, 2023, 01:34:45 AM
I’m confused - Google Street View shows signs at the bottom of both ramps from I-40 listing the way to “Sanford” , along with it being the control city of the exit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 15, 2023, 01:37:47 AM
Southeast of Greensboro US 421 was diverted onto the Outer Loop (I-85) leaving an orphan segment of ex-421 between I-85 and I-40. This segment was tossed into the secondary system, so it has no visible route number signage. At the north end I-40 Exit 222 is marked “Sanford”  but at the ends of the exit ramps there are no signs indicating which way to turn to go to Sanford. At the south end there’s a big sign for the ramp to the Outer Loop but no sign indicating that straight ahead the road goes to Greensboro. That seems like a significant failure of signage.

No, because the new signage is coming. The new signage for Exit 222 on I-40 will simply be called "ML King Jr Dr."

As of the US 421 signages with I-85 at the interchange, you basically entered Greensboro at the I-85 interchange (thanks to the annexation of the entire Greensboro Urban Loop by the City of Greensboro), so no reason to sign "To Greensboro, go straight" as most traffic follows US 421 onto I-85.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 15, 2023, 01:40:15 AM
Southeast of Greensboro US 421 was diverted onto the Outer Loop (I-85) leaving an orphan segment of ex-421 between I-85 and I-40. This segment was tossed into the secondary system, so it has no visible route number signage. At the north end I-40 Exit 222 is marked “Sanford”  but at the ends of the exit ramps there are no signs indicating which way to turn to go to Sanford. At the south end there’s a big sign for the ramp to the Outer Loop but no sign indicating that straight ahead the road goes to Greensboro. That seems like a significant failure of signage.

No, because the new signage is coming. The new signage for Exit 222 on I-40 will simply be called "ML King Jr Dr."

As of the US 421 signages with I-85 at the interchange, you basically entered Greensboro at the I-85 interchange (thanks to the annexation of the entire Greensboro Urban Loop by the City of Greensboro), so no reason to sign "To Greensboro, go straight" as most traffic follows US 421 onto I-85.
Why not though? Traffic following US-421 north going to downtown Greensboro is going to continue straight onto the old alignment, not exit onto I-85 heading due west.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on March 15, 2023, 01:18:57 PM
Southeast of Greensboro US 421 was diverted onto the Outer Loop (I-85) leaving an orphan segment of ex-421 between I-85 and I-40. This segment was tossed into the secondary system, so it has no visible route number signage. At the north end I-40 Exit 222 is marked “Sanford”  but at the ends of the exit ramps there are no signs indicating which way to turn to go to Sanford. At the south end there’s a big sign for the ramp to the Outer Loop but no sign indicating that straight ahead the road goes to Greensboro. That seems like a significant failure of signage.

I agree - it made sense to remove the US-421 shields from I-40 to that exit I guess but I would have preferred they had just added a "TO" shield next to the US-421 shield if they are still going to use Sanford at that exit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on March 15, 2023, 03:01:34 PM
In a similar vein, northbound 85 is only signed for an Exit 126, which is actually 126A/B. 85N is signed as only “Exit 126 US 421 Sanford.”  Once on the exit ramp, signage is shown as - “126A US 421 South Sanford”  and “126B Greensboro.”  B was obviously once US 421 North. Strangely enough, southbound 85 is signed for both 126A and B.

Probably meaningless, but I’ve always found it interesting.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 15, 2023, 04:36:11 PM
I’m confused - Google Street View shows signs at the bottom of both ramps from I-40 listing the way to “Sanford” , along with it being the control city of the exit.
I stand corrected on this, mostly at least. There are no signs at the MLK Street intersections, but there are directional signs on the ramps approaching the intersections.

Here's the signage on 421 NB at I-85: https://goo.gl/maps/xfgdPpzfpqV8PAYz8. Straight ahead is the way to go to downtown Greensboro and also to NC A&T University. Those destinations need a sign.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 15, 2023, 04:39:01 PM
On a very different subject, the federal appeals court upholds the environmental approval for the Currituck Sound toll bridge project:
https://coastalreview.org/2023/03/federal-appeals-court-affirms-mid-currituck-bridge-decision/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 15, 2023, 06:57:25 PM
Could you mark on Google Maps (or some other map app) the general vicinity of where this Currituck Sound toll bridge is proposed to be located? Thanks.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 15, 2023, 07:46:42 PM
Could you mark on Google Maps (or some other map app) the general vicinity of where this Currituck Sound toll bridge is proposed to be located? Thanks.

excellent map with location - https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/selected-alternative.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: tjcreasy on March 15, 2023, 08:55:40 PM
In regards to Old US 421 in Greensboro, sign it as J.M. Hunt JR Expwy “Greensboro”  on I-85. On I-40 sign Old US 421 as MLK JR Blvd to US 421 SOUTH “Liberty”  “Sanford” .  Anything more signage wise than what’s there is an improvement.

Bonus points for adding a state Highway designation which could be NC 22 without much effort.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on March 16, 2023, 08:22:04 AM
Could you mark on Google Maps (or some other map app) the general vicinity of where this Currituck Sound toll bridge is proposed to be located? Thanks.
From NCDOT: https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/mid-currituck-bridge/Documents/selected-alternative.pdf
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 17, 2023, 03:22:30 PM
In regards to Old US 421 in Greensboro, sign it as J.M. Hunt JR Expwy “Greensboro”  on I-85. On I-40 sign Old US 421 as MLK JR Blvd to US 421 SOUTH “Liberty”  “Sanford” .  Anything more signage wise than what’s there is an improvement.

Bonus points for adding a state Highway designation which could be NC 22 without much effort.

I think it should be signed as "US 421 Spur" on the former section between I-85 and I-40. 421 has been the route into Greensboro from points southeast for a long time. Signing a spur would keep it relevant.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 03:55:58 PM
Why didn’t they just keep US-421 on the old routing, then I-40? The overlap on the new beltway just seems pointless.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 17, 2023, 04:12:06 PM
I second this. Maybe they wanted an all-freeway alignment for US 421 within the Greensboro/Winston-Salem region.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 17, 2023, 06:45:01 PM
In regards to Old US 421 in Greensboro, sign it as J.M. Hunt JR Expwy “Greensboro”  on I-85. On I-40 sign Old US 421 as MLK JR Blvd to US 421 SOUTH “Liberty”  “Sanford” .  Anything more signage wise than what’s there is an improvement.

Bonus points for adding a state Highway designation which could be NC 22 without much effort.

I think it should be signed as "US 421 Spur" on the former section between I-85 and I-40. 421 has been the route into Greensboro from points southeast for a long time. Signing a spur would keep it relevant.
I support this idea. U.S. highways can have Bypass, Alternate, and Truck routes; there’s no reason 421 couldn’t have a Spur route. However I could also support returning 421 to its original route through Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2023, 10:32:39 PM
The re-routing was to reduce signing confusion and divert US-421 thru traffic at "Death Valley". One less route multiplex to worry about.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 10:33:38 PM
I-40 and US-421 would be the only routes through there, right?

I don’t see how that’s confusing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on March 17, 2023, 11:02:41 PM
US-29, US-220, US-70, and I-85 Bus (although not for long) share the I-40 roadway there too. For a brief period of time, I-40 itself was re-routed to the urban loop until NCDOT realized they would lose federal funding for that section of roadway being I-40 Business.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 18, 2023, 12:41:26 AM
US 421 is moved on the bypass (along with I-73 and I-85) to give motorists quicker way to bypass Greensboro. The old route is just for locals. The old US 421 part between I-40 and I-85 should be an extension of NC 22, IMO. (NC 22 used to begin/end at US 421 at the current I-85 interchange before the bypass was built).

Soon, only US 29 and US 220 will share the same road with I-40 through Greensboro. US 70 is being moved to Wendover and will no longer share same road. I-85 Bus is being phrased out right now between Lexington and Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2023, 05:56:00 PM
I see that new alignment for US 17 in Wilmington is going to use this ROW in the imagery here.
https://goo.gl/maps/HdrjvqGVyQ4cHEbj6
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 20, 2023, 05:58:15 PM
I see that new alignment for US 17 in Wilmington is going to use this ROW in the imagery here.
https://goo.gl/maps/HdrjvqGVyQ4cHEbj6

Actually it will not be a realignment of US 17, but it will instead be numbered NC 417.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 20, 2023, 06:16:23 PM
NC 417 is the first leg of a connection with NC 140 and the future Hampstead Bypass (which will have the US 17 Bypass designation): https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-17-hampstead-bypass/Pages/default.aspx. The bypass should be completed in 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampstead_Bypass_(North_Carolina).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex4897 on March 20, 2023, 09:30:32 PM
I can understand the Hampstead Bypass being left without an interstate designation even if it's a logical extension of the 'original' bypass, but what's up with the eastern leg of the Wilmington Bypass being left with a state route designation instead of the interstate designation? I've been on that leg of the bypass a couple times over the past few years and never noticed anything particularly deficient standards-wise about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 09:40:22 PM
^ Another thing to note about the new bypass (which will be a fully controlled access freeway north of I-140), it will have a TOTSO movement at its junction with I-140 / NC-140. Traffic wishing to continue onto US-17 north that is following I-140 will exit onto a flyover to connect with the new bypass.

Staying straight will simply keep you on I-140/NC-140.

Same with heading southbound on the new bypass, to continue onto I-140 to bypass Wilmington, one would need to exit right, or else one will continue onto the new NC-417 (which is under construction) which is simply an arterial roadway heading into Wilmington (not freeway).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 20, 2023, 09:55:25 PM
I don’t still understand why US 17 was placed on its current alignment after being routed on US 421, I-140, and present day NC 140.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 20, 2023, 10:10:06 PM
I can understand the Hampstead Bypass being left without an interstate designation even if it's a logical extension of the 'original' bypass, but what's up with the eastern leg of the Wilmington Bypass being left with a state route designation instead of the interstate designation? I've been on that leg of the bypass a couple times over the past few years and never noticed anything particularly deficient standards-wise about it.
If NCDOT had asked they probably would have gotten the interstate designation for NC 140. The situation is analogous to I-526 at Charleston or I-495 at Boston, a semicircular loop around a coastal city. The whole thing should have the interstate designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 23, 2023, 01:35:20 PM
Beginning Sunday, the Athens Drive bridge over I-440 will be closed for a year so that it can be replaced. This is part of the I-440 improvements project.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-04-athens-dr-bridge-i-440-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2022/2022-02-04-athens-dr-bridge-i-440-closure.aspx)

The new bridge is open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-03-22-athens-drive-bridge-reopen-i-440.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-03-22-athens-drive-bridge-reopen-i-440.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on March 23, 2023, 05:18:24 PM
I finally got a chance to drive over the two new bridges on the outer banks; the Bonner bridge replacement and the new jughandle bridge at Rodanthe. I must say, the Basnight bridge is a huge improvement over the old Bonner bridge. I feel bad for those with sound side houses in Rodanthe that now have a massive bridge dominating the view, but i guess it's better than having NC 12 wash out every 6 months.

I noticed several dead birds along the shoulders of both bridges. I wonder why that is?

I also noticed a third, less exciting bridge between the two. It looks like a place where the ocean breaches frequently so it makes sense.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Alex4897 on March 23, 2023, 05:32:26 PM
I noticed several dead birds along the shoulders of both bridges. I wonder why that is?

I've noticed the same phenomenon on the MD 90 bridges into Ocean City, the seagulls in particular seem to enjoy hanging on or around the bridge. Combine them with intermittent traffic and you're bound to get more than a few flattened stragglers.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 23, 2023, 05:42:38 PM

I also noticed a third, less exciting bridge between the two. It looks like a place where the ocean breaches frequently so it makes sense.

This is New Inlet, named when it opened in 1738. It has opened many times since then, famously in 2011 by Hurricane Irene.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 23, 2023, 10:41:14 PM
I noticed several dead birds along the shoulders of both bridges. I wonder why that is?

This phenomenon is common on elevated guideways for electrified rubber-tired trains.  You can make your own inferences here, but vehicles which lack engine noises can and do surprise all sorts of critters on a bridge (including us humans working in the right-of-way).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 12:40:40 AM
https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/1998/0/DRH10107-NE-38

Looks like North Carolina might be testing the waters again after failing a decade ago (2013)… there’s a bill to raise the maximum speed limit on interstate highways and controlled access facilities from 70 mph to 75 mph.

I think desolate rural stretches of I-40, I-85, I-95, I-77, I-587, US-64, US-17, etc. could reasonably handle a raise to 75 mph on fully controlled access segments.

First, I’d like NCDOT to increase some more 65 mph zones to 70 mph, and some more 55 mph zones to 60 mph (non limited access).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 24, 2023, 12:48:32 AM
How is NCDot doing financially these days, is there a trend towards returning to the spending levels and project delivery of say, 6 years ago?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on March 24, 2023, 08:14:38 AM
https://webservices.ncleg.gov/ViewBillDocument/2023/1998/0/DRH10107-NE-38

Looks like North Carolina might be testing the waters again after failing a decade ago (2013)… there’s a bill to raise the maximum speed limit on interstate highways and controlled access facilities from 70 mph to 75 mph.

I think desolate rural stretches of I-40, I-85, I-95, I-77, I-587, US-64, US-17, etc. could reasonably handle a raise to 75 mph on fully controlled access segments.

First, I’d like NCDOT to increase some more 65 mph zones to 70 mph, and some more 55 mph zones to 60 mph (non limited access).

These immediately come to mind:

I-795

I-40 between Benson (I-95) and Wilmington

US-264/I-587 between Zebulon and Greenville

US-64 between Zebulon and Rocky Mount (I-95)

I-95 between Kenly and the VA state line

I-85 between Durham (I-885) and the VA state line
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 08:40:29 AM
^ Some more I’ll throw onto that. I think the ongoing 8 lane widening portions of I-95 between I-40 and I-74 could reasonably handle 75 mph, although I’m not sure if they would go for that due to higher volumes.

In addition to US-64 between Zebulon and I-95 you mentioned, US-64 east of there from Rocky Mount to Williamston would be a good contender. The isolated 30 mile US-64 freeway segment east of Plymouth as well.

The US-70 freeway segments (Clayton, Goldsboro, west of New Bern) could also handle the increase.

I-140 around Wilmington, the US-17 bypasses of Pollocksville (all the way to US-70), Windsor, Edenton, and Elizabeth City, the NC-11 bypass of Greenville.

All of the US-74 freeway segments between Rockingham and Wilmington.

I-85 between Concord and Greensboro (traffic is always flowing 80+ mph here, it’s one of the only freeways in this part of the state NCDOT posts at 70 mph, there’s really no reason not to).

I-40 between Statesville and Winston-Salem.

I-77 between Statesville and Virginia.

I-73/I-74 south of Asheboro, I-74 between I-77 and US-52

US-29 between Reidsville and Virginia.

I could be missing some others.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 08:43:13 AM
How is NCDot doing financially these days, is there a trend towards returning to the spending levels and project delivery of say, 6 years ago?

The financial outlook for NCDOT seems to be strong.  My understanding is that NCDOT's financial issues were strictly limited to capital programs, and the financial issues were threefold: (1) the immediate impact of the eminent domain lawsuit;  (2) the near-term impact of increased costs of properties being acquired; and (3) the mid-term impact of increasing budgets for properties to be acquired.  It seems like yesterday, but the case NCDOT v. Independence Shopping Center was settled almost 10 years ago.  Plus, North Carolina has now had more than 10 years of strong financial growth and similar trends in tax revenues.  Currently, NCDOT's website boasts a budget of almost $5 billion.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on March 24, 2023, 01:52:53 PM
I would leave I-85 in the Henderson area at 70. Things sometimes get a little hairy around there as is (left entrance ramps at both ends of the US 158 duplex, with NC 39 being in the middle of it all).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 24, 2023, 02:09:32 PM
Currently, NCDOT's website boasts a budget of almost $5 billion.

Their budget may be pushing $5B, but they have one of the largest systems in the nation to maintain.

Was NCDOT vs Independence Shopping Center directly related to the Map Act?  I though the Map Act fiasco was more recent than 10 years ago.

IIRC, coincident with the Map Act fiasco was a couple of major tropical systems that caused a lot of damage to the road network.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 24, 2023, 03:00:12 PM
I would leave I-85 in the Henderson area at 70. Things sometimes get a little hairy around there as is (left entrance ramps at both ends of the US 158 duplex, with NC 39 being in the middle of it all).
I could see that. One of the beneficial things of a higher limit such as 75 mph, it allows a slower zone that’s not 65 mph, but not the “maximum”  speed limit either.

Interestingly enough, NCDOT just raised all of I-85 between Virginia and Henderson from 65 mph to 70 mph around 4 years ago once the reconstruction project was complete. I’m not sure why they did not eliminate those left exits around Henderson though.

Henderson could stay at 70 mph, with the speed limit raising to 75 mph again north of US-158 or US-1.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: RoadPelican on March 24, 2023, 04:37:34 PM
I'm all for raising the Speed Limit to 75. I would also raise the maximum on divided highways from 60 to 65. 75 for freeways, 65 for divided highways and keep 55 for 2 lane roads. A lot of states in the region already have 65 on their divided highways such as Florida, Georgia and Tennessee.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on March 24, 2023, 06:06:10 PM
How is NCDot doing financially these days, is there a trend towards returning to the spending levels and project delivery of say, 6 years ago?

My checks haven't bounced recently!  (Of course, my money comes from the retirement system these days!)

The financial outlook for NCDOT seems to be strong.  My understanding is that NCDOT's financial issues were strictly limited to capital programs, and the financial issues were threefold: (1) the immediate impact of the eminent domain lawsuit;  (2) the near-term impact of increased costs of properties being acquired; and (3) the mid-term impact of increasing budgets for properties to be acquired.  It seems like yesterday, but the case NCDOT v. Independence Shopping Center was settled almost 10 years ago.  Plus, North Carolina has now had more than 10 years of strong financial growth and similar trends in tax revenues.  Currently, NCDOT's website boasts a budget of almost $5 billion.

A lot of the financial hole was dug circa 2000 by preconstruction pushing for project planning/design to be done quickly, meaning more work went out to consultants than the budget should have allowed.  (One of the findings by the legislature's committee was that there was no check for this, which was bad accounting.  Of course, the legislature was one of the ones pushing for getting projects done sooner!)  The money wasn't lost (as some in the media like to say) but it was spent too early.  That, along with the substantial increase in costs for projects, created a big chunk of the budget shortfall.  The multiple storms didn't help, as the department had to pay upfront for the repairs, but the reimbursement was (and still is) slow to come from FEMA and others.

I think the map act issues have been covered.  Remember, NCDOT was following the law AS PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE, but had to pay out the law suits out of the current budget.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 07:41:10 PM
^^^^
My checks haven't bounced recently!  (Of course, my money comes from the retirement system these days!)

I'm assuming that this was supposed to be part of jdunlop's reply to my post.  I've worked alongside NCDOT folks on several projects, but never actually worked on an NCDOT project.


Was NCDOT vs Independence Shopping Center directly related to the Map Act?  I though the Map Act fiasco was more recent than 10 years ago.

jdunlop also kind of answered this, but indeed NCDOT vs Independence Shopping Center resulted in the overturn and eventual repeal of the Map Act.  If I recall correctly, the main premise of the Map Act (avoidance of financial responsibility for new structures built on proposed highway corridors) wasn't the primary issue of the civil suit.  The primary issue was insufficient compensation for loss of the incremental increased property value due to those restrictions.  But the way the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled on the case, NCDOT had to pay out damages resultant from both of those issues. 

I've seen several articles over the years, but still can't quite figure out when all of this really went down.  The courts originally ruled against NCDOT in July 2013 and the North Carolina Supreme Court gave a final ruling in June 2016.  But the financial impact of the ruling affected all eminent domain cases (and many other property acquisitions) resultant from NCDOT corridor assignments since the Map Act was enacted (that's a mouthful) in 1987.

IIRC, coincident with the Map Act fiasco was a couple of major tropical systems that caused a lot of damage to the road network.

The two recent ones that come to mind were Hurricane Matthew (Oct 2016) and Hurricane Florence (Sept 2018).  NCDOT received much of the repair funding from FEMA after those storms.  Going back into the 1990s, you had Hurricane Fran (Sep 1996), Hurricane Bonnie (Aug 1998) and worst of all Hurricane Floyd (Sep 1999).  For storms before 2005 (Hurricane Katrina), there wasn't near as much FEMA funding available for highway repairs.  But I'm pretty sure that none of the financial impact from NCDOT vs Independence Shopping Center really hit before the 2013 ruling.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 24, 2023, 08:28:29 PM
I made my post, because after discovering  the NC Dot let list site, I see a pattern of constant delays to major projects that are supposedly on the front burner.  US 321 from US 70 to Lenior comes to mind.   I know a business that has been absolutely guaranteed that would need to relocate within 6 months since I moved here in 2016.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on March 24, 2023, 10:36:07 PM
I made my post, because after discovering  the NC Dot let list site, I see a pattern of constant delays to major projects that are supposedly on the front burner.  US 321 from US 70 to Lenior comes to mind.   I know a business that has been absolutely guaranteed that would need to relocate within 6 months since I moved here in 2016.

Forgive me, but I must refrain from responding with any pertinent details at this time (perhaps someone else can help out).  However, I can say that NCDOT has a history of publishing a listing of certain high-priority projects that make it to the [top of the heap] but never seem to get moved forward.  Here, we have the I-85 Widening Project in Orange County which has been bounced in and out of the Top Five list at least a dozen times since before I moved here in Y2K.  As best as I can tell, the I-85 Orange County project is simply competing with other similar projects in similar suburban conditions with similar political persuasions and those other projects move up the ladder more quickly due to population growth (which is constrained here due to Orange County's unique slow-growth strategy).  Indeed, even the I-40 Widening Project in Orange County eventually bumped off its older sibling.

But I don't think that our situation would have any relevant correlation to why a major project in Caldwell County hasn't gotten a green light.  However, I do believe that your project has some relevance to some of the nuanced discussions over in the Best Highway/Freeway Connectivity thread under General Highway Talk.  For the record, Lenoir didn't quite make the Top Fifty in the 2020 United States Census.  But US-321 has been upgraded with enough Superstreet features to make it hard to disqualify Lenoir from being on the "connected" list.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 26, 2023, 06:10:06 PM
Does anyone know if Wrightsville Avenue in Wilmington ever was a numbered route? I noticed that on EB US 76 along Dawson Street at Oleander Drive there is an overhead assembly missing a panel for straight through Dawson.  I’m assuming that it was a state route of some sort hence the present panel brackets.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52772906157_ceeee48513_k.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2023, 06:33:52 AM
This is where US 17 used to turn left at 17th, which it did from 1969-2006.

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1971_wilm.jpg)
1971 official

Incidentally, Wrightsville Ave was NC 20 from 1921-26.  See the very bottom of this page - http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/route-log/nc020.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 27, 2023, 10:04:34 AM
Thanks.

I never would have thought that US 17 turned left onto 17th as I figured it continued on Dawson until I seen that Dawson ends at Wrightsville. That is what me me wonder what those brackets were once for as I figured US 17 & 74 both followed what is now US 17 Business.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 27, 2023, 11:06:09 AM
How is NCDot doing financially these days, is there a trend towards returning to the spending levels and project delivery of say, 6 years ago?



The financial outlook for NCDOT seems to be strong.  My understanding is that NCDOT's financial issues were strictly limited to capital programs, and the financial issues were threefold: (1) the immediate impact of the eminent domain lawsuit;  (2) the near-term impact of increased costs of properties being acquired; and (3) the mid-term impact of increasing budgets for properties to be acquired.  It seems like yesterday, but the case NCDOT v. Independence Shopping Center was settled almost 10 years ago.  Plus, North Carolina has now had more than 10 years of strong financial growth and similar trends in tax revenues.  Currently, NCDOT's website boasts a budget of almost $5 billion.

Actually the 2023 STIP or some document I saw on their website showed this year's budget that includes federal allocation at $6.8 billion. Obviously inflation is part of the reason, (Gov. Cooper's proposed next year's budget is $32-34 billion).

Regarding the speed limits, is everyone factoring in the perceived permission to exceed the posted limit up to 8-10 mph without fear of getting a ticket?

It sounds like you all obey the posted limits religiously. I believe that the general, imprecise accuracy 60of speedometers allow for that cushion of up to 8-10 mph because that has hh.istorically led to so many dismissals in court.

For that reason, I feel like most posted speeds on interstates are fine except in cities where a posting of 60mph could be misused since traffic is usually exceeding that by 10-15mph whenever possible.

I think I-40 to Wilmington is fine as is with moderate traffic the entire way and the average speed being about 77-79 mph.

We need a national campaign of mailers to every home reminding people to always keep to the right of faster traffic.

I watch trucks and cars in the middle lanes of I-85 between Atlanta and Raleigh going too slow which forces hundreds of approaching cars to make multiply lane changes to get around them all compromising the safety of everyone unnecessarily.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 27, 2023, 12:38:13 PM
Regarding the speed limits, is everyone factoring in the perceived permission to exceed the posted limit up to 8-10 mph without fear of getting a ticket?

It sounds like you all obey the posted limits religiously. I believe that the general, imprecise accuracy 60of speedometers allow for that cushion of up to 8-10 mph because that has hh.istorically led to so many dismissals in court.
Traffic flows at a natural and comfortable speed for the road design. Have you ever driven in a state with a 75 mph or 80 mph posted speed limit? Traffic isn’t doing 85-90+ mph there on a regular. Most traffic sticks around 80-82 mph, regardless of what is posted. Obviously, there’s always outliers, but they’re not the norm. The 8-10 mph over general rule tends to lessen as the speeds get higher. 80 mph is a comfortable cruising speed.

My personal habits have me sitting around 75-76 mph where the posted speed is 65 mph, 78-79 mph where the posted speed is 70 mph, and right at 80 mph where it’s posted 75 mph. I don’t tend to push 80 mph unless I’m traveling with a fast flow of traffic.

I’ve driven around Texas, for example, a number of times (along with other 75 mph states such as Louisiana I-49, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas), and the traffic on the rural interstates tend to move around 79-80 mph, and don’t change when the speed limit drops to 70 mph.

Arkansas, in particular, I drove both when the maximum was 70 mph, then later when it was raised to 75 mph, and anecdotally, I didn’t notice much change / variation in driving speeds.

Raising the speed limit isn’t going to increase overall speed by more than a mile or two per hour.

Quote
I think I-40 to Wilmington is fine as is with moderate traffic the entire way and the average speed being about 77-79 mph.
I-40 between Raleigh and Wilmington can easily handle a 75 mph speed limit without question. In terms of speed cushion, 80-85 mph (at most) is still very reasonable on that long, desolate rural interstate.

Freeways such as US-64, I-587, I-795, US-17 bypasses, etc. can very easily handle a 75 mph limit.

Quote
We need a national campaign of mailers to every home reminding people to always keep to the right of faster traffic.

I watch trucks and cars in the middle lanes of I-85 between Atlanta and Raleigh going too slow which forces hundreds of approaching cars to make multiply lane changes to get around them all compromising the safety of everyone unnecessarily.
Agreed 100%
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 27, 2023, 06:07:04 PM
Question for engineers on the forum: isn’t it true that speed limit should normally approximate the speed actually traveled by free-flowing traffic on the highway? A lot of the discussion here is about what that speed is for NC interstates. And it is certainly true that free-flowing traffic moves safely at 75 mph+ on many of these freeways. My only problem with this is that free-flowing traffic can feel unsafe on crowded freeways due to vehicles following too closely and changing lanes frequently. Increased speed on crowded highways also makes distracted or fatigued drivers more dangerous. (I-95 is prone to horrible, road-closing crashes as a result.)
 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on March 27, 2023, 07:24:04 PM
In 1998 I was driving in West Texas near Roby and goy a ticket for going 109 mph. The cop escorted me to a Mayberry-esque police station and fined me all of the cash in my wallet, $250.

4 hours later I got a second ticket for 85 or 89 mph (I can't remember) down the interstate. I was escorted to the police station and paid another fine $150 or so in cash.

Why was I happy? in Texas they don't report it to your home state thus insurance co. never knows to raise your rate.

West Texas is just so damn boring for hours and hours with nothing to look at. Kansas is even worse, the ground and a blank horizon, a tree, house and silo once every 45 minutes, from dawn to dusk.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 27, 2023, 07:48:11 PM
Thanks.

I never would have thought that US 17 turned left onto 17th as I figured it continued on Dawson until I seen that Dawson ends at Wrightsville. That is what me me wonder what those brackets were once for as I figured US 17 & 74 both followed what is now US 17 Business.

it's kind of an artifact from how access to Wilmington from the west/south used to be.  Prior to 1969, there was no bridge at downtown; only the current NC 133 bridge location had a crossing.  Thus, everything came from the north and US 74-76 actually used 17th to get down to Dawson as shown in this 1937 Texaco map scan:

(http://www.vahighways.com/ncannex/ncscans/1937_76.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on March 28, 2023, 11:37:02 AM
Question for engineers on the forum: isn’t it true that speed limit should normally approximate the speed actually traveled by free-flowing traffic on the highway? A lot of the discussion here is about what that speed is for NC interstates. And it is certainly true that free-flowing traffic moves safely at 75 mph+ on many of these freeways. My only problem with this is that free-flowing traffic can feel unsafe on crowded freeways due to vehicles following too closely and changing lanes frequently. Increased speed on crowded highways also makes distracted or fatigued drivers more dangerous. (I-95 is prone to horrible, road-closing crashes as a result.)
Within reason, yes the speed limit on freeways should approximate the typical free-flow speed of the section.  You will typically see a lower speed limit in urban areas, where the road can be more crowded (LOS C-F), and higher in rural areas (that are almost always LOS A-B.)  The design speed of the road plays into the speed limit as well.  Most sections are designed for 70 MPH, however the design of a relatively straight/flat section is nominally that, but really drivers are comfortable going much faster.  Hence the 75-85 MPH speed limits on similar roads (in other states than NC.)  I also find the "artificially low" speed limits, such as on I-85 in Durham and Charlotte (60 instead of 65) to be a problem because of speed differential.

I-95 in North Carolina is a safety problem, one due to the old designs (which are being worked on), and because it's roughly eight hours from NYC and about the same from Florida.  So, right at that "fatigued" distance for many drivers.  Very few things are scarier as a driver than another driver in front of you falling asleep and weaving in and out of the median.  (The only thing worse that's happened to me is a wrong-way driver on a freeway.  Fortunately, I was in the right lane, and the other driver was in what they thought was their right lane.)

Also a problem in the construction areas is that the speed limits are reduced due to the tighter driving space (11' lanes and Jersey barriers close to the sides) and drivers that don't slow down for the construction area that have frequent stoppages/slowdowns.

(Speed limits on local roads is a whole different thing due to other modes of travel being on/next to those roads, and another, long, discussion!)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on March 28, 2023, 11:52:55 AM
Hence the 75-85 MPH speed limits on similar roads (in other states than NC.)
I believe, interestingly enough, that the 85 mph road in question, SH-130 in Texas, was actually specifically designed with that speed limit in mind. This is apparent when driving it, the curve radii are significantly larger than usual, and can be easily traversed at 85-90 mph.

Otherwise, the standard in Texas tends to generally be a 70 mph design speed as well, and then raised to 75 mph following a traffic study. 75 mph is the most common speed limit in Texas in rural areas, on both interstates and arterial roadways.


Quote
I also find the "artificially low" speed limits, such as on I-85 in Durham and Charlotte (60 instead of 65) to be a problem because of speed differential.
I’ve found those areas interesting, as they sort of make sense but at the same time they tend to be ineffective and also inconsistent. Something like I-85 through Charlotte (and extending all the way to Gastonia) is 60 mph, yet I-40 through Raleigh maintains 65 mph the whole way through. I-85 is much wider and more modern from Durham, what is preventing 65 mph there?

The speed limits on some rural interstates confuse me as well… why is the urban 8 lane Greensboro loop (I-73 portion) signed for 70 mph, yet the rural 4 lane portions of I-73 both north and south of Greensboro with far less traffic, wider interchanges, median, etc. drag on at 65 mph for 20+ miles? What’s preventing those areas to be 70 mph but is okay on the much busier, curvier, urban beltway? The same for the 8 lane I-40/I-85 east of the city, US-421 southeast of the city (this one is rural freeway with a large forested median but only 60 mph!), I-74 between Winston-Salem and I-73, etc.

I’d ask the same about I-95 and it’s numerous 65 mph zones… they seem to “make sense”  but when you factor in free-flow of 80+ mph, why can these portions not be signed for 70 mph?

The speed inconsistencies across North Carolina’s interstates have confused me for a long time… any justification or answers on that? The same with the lack of consistency on 60 mph speed zones on four lane divided highways, many roads still hold 55 mph yet can be raised safely to 60 mph.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 28, 2023, 01:17:25 PM
Great read describing a journey on US 64 from one end of the state to the other.  This is the type of highway features/writing I personally enjoy.

https://www.theassemblync.com/place/north-carolina-longest-highway/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ITB on March 29, 2023, 11:10:22 PM

YouTuber, Mileage Mike, has uploaded a video titled, "Why North Carolina is COVERING the ENTIRE State in Interstate Highways". For those interested, here it is:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 31, 2023, 07:50:25 PM
NCDOT has awarded a $33M contract to repair the Old Manns Harbor Bridge on US 64. This is the original bridge connecting Manteo and Roanoke Island to the mainland. It’s a narrow 2 lane bridge opened in 1955.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-03-30-old-manns-harbor-speed-limit.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 06, 2023, 03:30:32 PM
North Carolina along with Tennessee has ran into some serious budget shortfalls and in NC a tax on Uber/Lyft and rider sharing help close the gap a bit: https://www.wral.com/story/new-tax-on-uber-lyft-seen-as-partial-answer-on-nc-road-funding/20797915/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 08, 2023, 10:13:28 AM
North Carolina along with Tennessee has ran into some serious budget shortfalls and in NC a tax on Uber/Lyft and rider sharing help close the gap a bit: https://www.wral.com/story/new-tax-on-uber-lyft-seen-as-partial-answer-on-nc-road-funding/20797915/

Most on the list are reasonable and of course this is not the final version of it. The only item that bothers me is raising the cap of the public-private partnership from three to six; this is not needed as there is only one currently and that had been such a clusterf*ck that politicians have stayed away from doing any others.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 12, 2023, 02:13:05 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 12, 2023, 02:58:49 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."
This one was inevitably going to happen, and it’s a logical link. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, it will be a full freeway between I-26 and I-85. Some parts would need shoulder widening but that’s about it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 12, 2023, 06:46:44 PM
Although it’s not an official state policy, the efforts of Congress, city councils, and chambers of commerce are succeeding in putting every city in NC on or near an interstate or at least a proposed interstate. Shelby isn’t that large, with a population of about 22,000, but the only larger cities I can think of without a nearby interstate are Monroe and Jacksonville. And both of them want to join the club.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on April 12, 2023, 06:52:09 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."
This one was inevitably going to happen, and it’s a logical link. Once the Shelby Bypass is complete, it will be a full freeway between I-26 and I-85. Some parts would need shoulder widening but that’s about it.

There are still a few at-grade intersections in the Mooresboro area, roughly between the NC 120 interchange and the western end of the Shelby Bypass.  But it’s a fairly short distance and should be relatively easy to upgrade.  Everywhere else should be shoulder upgrades for the most part.

Although it’s not an official state policy, the efforts of Congress, city councils, and chambers of commerce are succeeding in putting every city in NC on or near an interstate or at least a proposed interstate. Shelby isn’t that large, with a population of about 22,000, but the only larger cities I can think of without a nearby interstate are Monroe and Jacksonville. And both of them want to join the club.

I am thinking this isn’t so much for the benefit of Shelby as it is for much better connectivity between Greater Asheville and Greater Charlotte.  Shelby has long suffered from traffic backups along their original “bypass”  and the second freeway bypass is being built to alleviate this.  But the official future interstate designation gives the whole corridor the attention it deserves.  By no means will this be a useless interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 12, 2023, 07:03:22 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on April 12, 2023, 07:20:14 PM
Turn lane being put in on US-421 by the North Wilkesboro Speedway. Wonder if this is the first step in a proper exit getting out in at Fishing Creek Road........

https://imgur.com/a/tPOiyt7 (https://imgur.com/a/tPOiyt7)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 12, 2023, 07:26:30 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.
FWIW NC has state routes 126 and 226 but not 326 or 426. SC has I-126 at Columbia but no I-326 or 426.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Evan_Th on April 12, 2023, 07:37:20 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.

It should really be an I-36 or I-38 all the way from Columbus to Wilmington.  Kill I-74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 12, 2023, 07:55:46 PM

There are still a few at-grade intersections in the Mooresboro area, roughly between the NC 120 interchange and the western end of the Shelby Bypass.  But it’s a fairly short distance and should be relatively easy to upgrade.  Everywhere else should be shoulder upgrades for the most part.


An interchange is planned and a design-build project will be let this July. The remainder of the Shelby Bypass is still scheduled to be let in July as well. So, roughly four more years before it's finally a continuous freeway.

R-4045 Alternative 1A (https://publicinput.com/Customer/File/Full/696d7e60-19a9-4917-968b-3932a1d7b078)

There are also some ramps that aren't wide enough to meet interstate standards. For example, Exit 161 at I-26/Columbus. I don't know why they didn't go ahead and widen the loop when they built the rest of the I-26 interchange a few years ago.

Too bad that large portions of US 74 were recently resurfaced in Cleveland and Rutherford counties. A contract was just let for paving from the Polk County line to the US 74A exit. I wouldn't expect any action for at least a decade.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 12, 2023, 09:47:55 PM
There are also some ramps that aren't wide enough to meet interstate standards. For example, Exit 161 at I-26/Columbus. I don't know why they didn't go ahead and widen the loop when they built the rest of the I-26 interchange a few years ago.
It’s a narrower 25 mph loop ramp but I’m not sure how that doesn’t meet interstate standards?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 09:54:54 PM
I would support an upgrade of US 74 to Interstate Standards (both the portion between Interstates 26 and 85, and the portion east of Charlotte), but would not support adding an Interstate designation. If an Interstate designation must be added, I'd choose Interstate 36 for a 2di, and Interstate 426 for a 3di.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on April 13, 2023, 08:30:17 AM
There are also some ramps that aren't wide enough to meet interstate standards. For example, Exit 161 at I-26/Columbus. I don't know why they didn't go ahead and widen the loop when they built the rest of the I-26 interchange a few years ago.
It’s a narrower 25 mph loop ramp but I’m not sure how that doesn’t meet interstate standards?

The current ramp is between 15 and 16 ft. wide. Minimum width for a loop is 16 ft. and should be at least 18 ft. if the loop radius is less than 230 ft. Interstate loops are recommended to be at least 230 ft. where feasible to maintain a 30 mph design speed.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52814491004_dacc8a86a0_o.png)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 13, 2023, 08:58:27 AM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.

It should really be an I-36 or I-38 all the way from Columbus to Wilmington.  Kill I-74.

I understand, but honestly I am fine with a I-x26 for this section since any Columbus to Wilmington route would have needless concurrences in the Charlotte Metro area. For Wilmington, better option is to change Congress' passed law on extending I-74 by eliminating that section east of Cincinnati, Ohio and renumbering existing I-74 in North Carolina into I-36/38/46/48/Whatever from I-77 east to Wilmington, eliminating north of Virginia and South Carolina completely... that's the better solution in my opinion. It is unfortunate that's an Act of Congress though to accomplish.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 18, 2023, 08:23:35 PM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

Called it years ago. I-426 was my pick.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mr. ENC on April 21, 2023, 08:18:10 AM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.

It should really be an I-36 or I-38 all the way from Columbus to Wilmington.  Kill I-74.

I understand, but honestly I am fine with a I-x26 for this section since any Columbus to Wilmington route would have needless concurrences in the Charlotte Metro area. For Wilmington, better option is to change Congress' passed law on extending I-74 by eliminating that section east of Cincinnati, Ohio and renumbering existing I-74 in North Carolina into I-36/38/46/48/Whatever from I-77 east to Wilmington, eliminating north of Virginia and South Carolina completely... that's the better solution in my opinion. It is unfortunate that's an Act of Congress though to accomplish.

I actually made a post a few years back on fictional interstates that it should part of I-42. Have it start at Kings Mountain at I 26, run with I -85 through Charlotte, then split off at Kannapolis going towards Asheboro, use it's bypass and continue going east towards Apex following US-64, merge onto 540and use that to meet back up at the current I-42 just south of Garner. That way you can go to Charlotte without ever passing through Triangle or Triad traffic.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 21, 2023, 09:56:34 AM
Another "future" Interstate is being proposed.

Edwards introduces bill to designate US 74 as a future interstate (https://edwards.house.gov/media/press-releases/edwards-introduces-bill-designate-us-74-future-interstate)

"Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) this week introduced H.R. 2551 to designate US Highway 74, from I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, N.C., as a future interstate. Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC-10) is an original cosponsor of the legislation.

"This bill is the first step toward adding US 74 to the interstate highway system.

"A future-interstate designation will allow the North Carolina Department of Transportation to place corresponding signs along the corridor that runs through Polk, Rutherford, Cleveland and Gaston counties, while the road is brought up to interstate standards."

It will have to be I-x26 since it quotes "FROM I-26 in Columbus, N.C. to I-85 in Kings Mountain, NC....". We already have I-285, I-485, I-785 and I-885. I-685 is reserved for the US 421 from Greensboro to Dunn (or Wilmington.. in which I think does not make any sense.. it should have just go to Fayetteville), so pretty much there is no even I-x85s left.

It should really be an I-36 or I-38 all the way from Columbus to Wilmington.  Kill I-74.

I understand, but honestly I am fine with a I-x26 for this section since any Columbus to Wilmington route would have needless concurrences in the Charlotte Metro area. For Wilmington, better option is to change Congress' passed law on extending I-74 by eliminating that section east of Cincinnati, Ohio and renumbering existing I-74 in North Carolina into I-36/38/46/48/Whatever from I-77 east to Wilmington, eliminating north of Virginia and South Carolina completely... that's the better solution in my opinion. It is unfortunate that's an Act of Congress though to accomplish.
I-28, I-32 and I-34 have not been used either.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 21, 2023, 11:27:12 AM
The US 74 Bypass Shelby Bypass have a completion date of 2027 (although it will likely be sufficiently longer for any Interstate designation to come to fruition). I also wouldn't be surprised if US 74 between Charlotte and Rockingham is eventually proposed to be added to the Interstate System as well (although I highly doubt existing and future Interstate 74 east of Rockingham will ever be renumbered). If a two-digit Interstate Highway designation is chosen for the Columbus-Kings Mountain segment, it would likely have to follow Interstate 85 and Interstate 485 to connect to Rockingham, since I highly doubt they will upgrade all of US 74/E. Independence Blvd. into an Interstate Standard freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 21, 2023, 12:28:05 PM
The US 74 Bypass Shelby Bypass have a completion date of 2027 (although it will likely be sufficiently longer for any Interstate designation to come to fruition). I also wouldn't be surprised if US 74 between Charlotte and Rockingham is eventually proposed to be added to the Interstate System as well (although I highly doubt existing and future Interstate 74 east of Rockingham will ever be renumbered). If a two-digit Interstate Highway designation is chosen for the Columbus-Kings Mountain segment, it would likely have to follow Interstate 85 and Interstate 485 to connect to Rockingham, since I highly doubt they will upgrade all of US 74/E. Independence Blvd. into an Interstate Standard freeway.

If Columbus-Kings Mountain becomes a I-x26, then I can also see that for Matthews-Rockingham as a I-x73 or I-x74 route. I don't see a need of a two-digit interstate needed unless there is real talk about Columbus to Wilmington route, which there is not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 21, 2023, 02:27:35 PM
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 21, 2023, 02:29:25 PM
New bridges at the I-440/Wade Avenue interchange will soon open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-04-21-i-440-beltline-wade-avenue-bridge-new.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-04-21-i-440-beltline-wade-avenue-bridge-new.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 21, 2023, 03:06:20 PM
New bridges at the I-440/Wade Avenue interchange will soon open.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-04-21-i-440-beltline-wade-avenue-bridge-new.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-04-21-i-440-beltline-wade-avenue-bridge-new.aspx)
This includes the big flyover bridge carrying WB Wade Avenue over I-440. Once over that bridge there's a left exit to a new bridge carrying WB Wade Avenue drivers over EB Wade avenue to enter I-440 WB. This is a major step toward completion of the new interchange.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 21, 2023, 04:29:50 PM
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

A toll road for roughly 30-50 years, about the same time frame it takes for NCDOT to build a freeway between Marshville and Rockingham. So it can work out, eventually.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 21, 2023, 06:52:49 PM
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2023, 06:59:54 PM
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.
Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 21, 2023, 07:22:47 PM
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.
Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.
Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?
^ I don't think the Matthews-Rockingham segment can become an interstate, given that the Monroe Bypass is tolled.

This dynamic is no longer a problem for converting to an interstate.
Then what is the issue with NC-540 becoming I-540?

Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 21, 2023, 11:16:11 PM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 22, 2023, 02:11:08 AM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on April 22, 2023, 07:49:38 AM
Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.

You know I have to ask for source now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on April 22, 2023, 10:12:44 AM
^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 22, 2023, 12:04:48 PM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 22, 2023, 12:41:50 PM
Law has changed since 540 came along.   It is not completely clear if roads that were subject to that prohibition remain so now.

You know I have to ask for source now.

See reply 20 here - https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31769.msg2753261#msg2753261
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on April 22, 2023, 01:28:15 PM
^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.


Florida has a state law now that interstates can’t be tolled except for both I-75 and I-275. The former is allowed as toll money goes to restoring the environment That Alligator Alley is destroying plus the same grandfathered rules that I-275 has regarding the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on April 22, 2023, 06:22:31 PM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 22, 2023, 08:55:04 PM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.
Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 23, 2023, 01:14:10 AM
^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.


Florida has a state law now that interstates can’t be tolled except for both I-75 and I-275. The former is allowed as toll money goes to restoring the environment That Alligator Alley is destroying plus the same grandfathered rules that I-275 has regarding the Sunshine Skyway Bridge.

What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NE2 on April 23, 2023, 01:18:19 AM
What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?
Quote from: 338.165 (8)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), and not including high occupancy toll lanes or express lanes, no tolls may be charged for use of an interstate highway where tolls were not charged as of July 1, 1997.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 23, 2023, 01:24:29 AM
What about the 'tolled' express lanes on I-4, I-95, & I-295 then?
Quote from: 338.165 (8)
Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), and not including high occupancy toll lanes or express lanes, no tolls may be charged for use of an interstate highway where tolls were not charged as of July 1, 1997.

Ah.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2023, 06:50:19 AM
^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.

Federal funding was definitely involved with NC-540 and NC-885.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_triangle_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_triangle_expressway.aspx)

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on April 23, 2023, 09:50:34 AM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.
Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

In fact, that has always been informally mentioned in letters to the editor, etc. to the News & Observer and other media outlet comments over the years.  The number has pretty much set in with local residents.  Some comments were made when 495/87 came along that it should be changed to 640 - but the conventional wisdom is, "Hey, let's just leave it alone."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on April 23, 2023, 09:59:40 AM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.
Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

In fact, that has always been informally mentioned in letters to the editor, etc. to the News & Observer and other media outlet comments over the years.  The number has pretty much set in with local residents.  Some comments were made when 495/87 came along that it should be changed to 640 - but the conventional wisdom is, "Hey, let's just leave it alone."

Back when I-495 was approved in 2013, NCDOT even got a waiver from FHWA to keep I-540 as is, citing local familiarity and the cost of changing all the signs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 10:02:21 AM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2023, 02:22:06 PM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on April 23, 2023, 04:37:55 PM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

I think that this is more of an issue about the [cost of money] than bond ratings.  It looks like the North Carolina Turnpike Authority can still get TIFIA loans under 2%, whereas recent NCTA bonds are grabbing as much as 5% interest (yet still rated as Fitch AA+).  I'm curious as to whether the use of TIFIA loans requires NCTA to adhere to the entirety of FHWA regulations for highway construction.  At some point, there is a crossover for which the additional 20% from the Feds doesn't make sense to take.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2023, 05:24:11 PM

A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)

I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.

I think that this is more of an issue about the [cost of money] than bond ratings.  It looks like the North Carolina Turnpike Authority can still get TIFIA loans under 2%, whereas recent NCTA bonds are grabbing as much as 5% interest (yet still rated as Fitch AA+).  I'm curious as to whether the use of TIFIA loans requires NCTA to adhere to the entirety of FHWA regulations for highway construction.  At some point, there is a crossover for which the additional 20% from the Feds doesn't make sense to take.

Interesting.  So, it was because bonding sucked.

I believe that they would have to follow fed-aid requirements, given FHWA's oversight of the funds.

One interesting requirement is that TIFIA and other federal-aid can only constitute 49% of the project's cost, which explains why authorities have been using them for the most part.

One annoying thing I didn't know is that they eat into a State's annual obligation authority (!).  For a state like NY, there had to be coordination with the authorities on their projects, which utilized TIFIA (Moynihan, Goethals Bridge, etc.).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 05:27:13 PM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.
Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on April 23, 2023, 05:35:55 PM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.
Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.

Not sure what you're asking.  TIFIA would have no bearing on Interstate designation one way or the other.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 05:37:12 PM
A TIFIA loan was involved with the Monroe Bypass.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/project_profiles/nc_monroe_expressway.aspx)
I’m not necessarily sure that would count as federal funding, though I’m not 100% sure.

Sure, it is.  It's just such a bad deal that NYSDOT steered clear of them (can't remember if NY used them for anything): "Why use federal funds at 80/20 or borrow through State bonding when you could borrow federal funds that you have to pay 100% back with interest?"  NC's bonding capability must really suck for them to turn to TIFIA.
Would having TIFIA loans count as federal funding in terms of prohibiting an interstate designation? That’s what I’m curious about.

Not sure what you're asking.  TIFIA would have no bearing on Interstate designation one way or the other.
The idea that if federal funding is used on a toll road, then it cannot have an interstate designation, as discussed above.

^ The Rambler (FHWA's historian) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/tollroad.cfm) makes some mention of this.  There is a provision in the 1956 highway act that funded the Interstates that allows tolled highways to be added to the system as long as they meet Interstate standards and no Federal funding was used in their planning, construction, or operation.  This is how the legacy toll roads (i.e. PA Turnpike, NYS Thruway, NJ Turnpike, etc etc) were able to be added to the system.

Although the rules with Interstates and tolling have changed over the years (especially in the last 15), this provision still stands.  I'm not sure if Toll 540 meets that lack-of-Federal-funding requirement or not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on April 23, 2023, 09:30:40 PM
I'm not sure where the source for commonly cited rule of initial construction projects for toll highways using federal funds being barred from the Interstate System is in current US Code.

Here's the current language governing use of federal funds for construction of toll roads, per Cornell's site: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/129. I do not see any general prohibition on toll highway projects funded with federal aid becoming part of the Interstate System.

Does anyone know if there is an actual written policy for this?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on April 23, 2023, 09:33:56 PM
How about the new portion currently being constructed?

It has been addressed before. I-540 will remain I-540. NC Toll 540 will remain NC Toll 540 when the entire Outer Loop is completed and it will be like that for time being until whenever the tolls are fully paid. After that... that's a good question. There is NO plans to change it into I-640 at this time.
At no point did I suggest I-640, nor that the numbers would be any different. I’m simply asking the reasoning behind it, regarding this law that was mentioned.

I'm just telling you just in case you have another ideas coming up in the back of your head.
Nope. In fact, I think I-640 designation would just create more confusion and is not necessary at this point. The loop is 540 and will always be known as 540.

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

Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity. And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.

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

NC is the state of formerly 4 different US70s in Johnston Cty. (now 3 I think) so who knows what will become of it 30 years from now?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OracleUsr on April 23, 2023, 09:36:56 PM
Great read describing a journey on US 64 from one end of the state to the other.  This is the type of highway features/writing I personally enjoy.

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

My 8th grade social studies class did a paper that was titled Murphy to Manteo, describing the journey of US 64.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 10:19:25 PM
It was originally planned to become I-640 once the loop was complete. I remember the poster they produced back in 1992.
That was 30 years ago. Things change.

Quote
Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity.
Agreed, they will probably redesignate it NC-540 to I-540 to provide consistency.

Quote
And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.
Why would they change a 30 year old designation by a single number? Besides to appease the roadgeek community who want strict enforcement of merely suggested 3di numbering standards, why would they change it?

Quote
Some people are just in love with the 540 designation with doesn't identify with a completed loop.
Some people are in love with suggested 3di numbering conventions so much that they want to change a by-then 50+ year designation from a “5”  to a “6” .
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on April 26, 2023, 01:04:22 PM
It was originally planned to become I-640 once the loop was complete. I remember the poster they produced back in 1992.
That was 30 years ago. Things change.

Quote
Once the bonds are paid off, I'll bet anything that the entire loop will become one named entity.
Agreed, they will probably redesignate it NC-540 to I-540 to provide consistency.

Quote
And it will likely begin with an even number, because that follows the rules they have tried to follow for decades.
Why would they change a 30 year old designation by a single number? Besides to appease the roadgeek community who want strict enforcement of merely suggested 3di numbering standards, why would they change it?

Quote
Some people are just in love with the 540 designation with doesn't identify with a completed loop.
Some people are in love with suggested 3di numbering conventions so much that they want to change a by-then 50+ year designation from a “5”  to a “6” .

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

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

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

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

I will bet $1K that Raleigh's completed loop will not keep the "5" 1st number. It will be I-240,640,840, or 440 with the Beltline getting renamed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on April 26, 2023, 01:47:21 PM
Well, it won’t be 240 (Asheville) or 840 (Greensboro). There’s no chance in hell 440 will be renumbered.

Think what you will, but exceptions to the rules do exist - including I-540 in current form.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bassoon1986 on April 26, 2023, 02:48:56 PM
Right. I don’t see a state DOT wanting to spend to reminder an entire loop just for that reason. Exceptions are definitely out there. Augusta has 520 half loop because it used to be only a spur on the Georgia side.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2023, 07:08:41 PM
Yes, it was a mistake to number the first sections of the road 540 instead of 640. Water over the proverbial dam. Current interest in changing the number is confined pretty much to this forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2023, 07:54:52 PM
There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

There are several examples of partial loops with odd numbers in the first digit, such as I-170 at St. Louis and I-355 at Chicago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 26, 2023, 09:26:04 PM
There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 26, 2023, 10:47:04 PM
There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.
I grew up in Richmond and visited relatives there for many years. I do not recall the Downtown Expressway having any number other than 195, and I’m sure I drove it when it was new in the mid 70s. I suppose you could be right about VDOT thinking of moving I-95 but where would that have left the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg?

In any case, I-195 has looped back to I-95 via VA route 195 for 45 years or more so I still see this as analogous to the 540 situation, FWIW.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2023, 10:52:07 PM
Some more information regarding the I-95 / I-85 / I-295 numbering in Virginia from Roads to the Future listed below.

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

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on April 27, 2023, 06:24:12 AM
There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

That it loops back to I-95 appears to have been the intention of VDOT when they renumbered VA 88 as VA 195, but at the same time VDOT was intending to move I-95 to what is now I-295.  I-95 between Richmond and Petersburg would've become a state route and I-195 extended north to the relocated I-95 at Exit 84.  This would've made I-195/VA 195 a spur designation.
I grew up in Richmond and visited relatives there for many years. I do not recall the Downtown Expressway having any number other than 195, and I’m sure I drove it when it was new in the mid 70s. I suppose you could be right about VDOT thinking of moving I-95 but where would that have left the northern end of I-85 in Petersburg?

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

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

I have found 1 map that shows it...
(http://vahighways.com/mapscans/88_1974.jpg)
1974 AAA
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Henry on April 27, 2023, 10:46:21 AM
There is an analogous situation in Richmond, Virginia, where I-195 loops back to I-95 by Toll VA 195. AFAIK no one is pushing to renumber 195 to 695.

There are several examples of partial loops with odd numbers in the first digit, such as I-170 at St. Louis and I-355 at Chicago.
The other way, there are also spurs with even numbers as a first digit, like I-495 and I-678 in New York. As for I-195, it doesn't bother me that it continues back to I-95 as VA 195. Changing it to something else would only create confusion, so there you have it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on April 27, 2023, 05:53:48 PM
Some more information regarding the I-95 / I-85 / I-295 numbering in Virginia from Roads to the Future listed below.

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

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
Thanks for this explanation. As a Tar Heel now for many years my comment is that it’s unfortunate that the southern bypass of Petersburg wasn’t built; it would give us NC folks an easy way to use I-295 to avoid the former RPT.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: OldDominion75 on April 30, 2023, 10:49:25 PM
US 158’s planned relocation onto a new 4-lane divided highway in Northampton County seems to be moving forward. The bridges over US 301 in Garysburg are up and the ramps are almost complete. It looks to be a partial cloverleaf interchange. I wonder what the Roanoke Rapids-Weldon route will become.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on April 30, 2023, 11:38:26 PM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx

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

I’m not sure if long-range plans call for widening US-158 east of there to US-17. I do know a segment that is needed, and seemingly keeps getting delayed, is from Camden to NC-168. An interchange at US-17 / US-158 is also long overdue.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on May 01, 2023, 12:17:19 AM
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us-158-widening/Pages/default.aspx

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

I’m not sure if long-range plans call for widening US-158 east of there to US-17. I do know a segment that is needed, and seemingly keeps getting delayed, is from Camden to NC-168. An interchange at US-17 / US-158 is also long overdue.
The sign plans for the project are at:
https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Northampton_R2582A_34472.3.2_C204210/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2019%20Highway%20Letting/07-16-19/Plans%20and%20Proposals/Northampton_R2582A_34472.3.2_C204210/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing%20Plans.pdf)

It appears US 158 will join I-95 between Exits 173 and 176. A Business US 158 will be designated along the old US 158 East route. The new signage for Exit 176 will feature US 158, NC 46 and NC 186 shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2023, 12:27:34 AM
^ Pleasantly surprised to see them post a 60 mph speed limit, especially immediately. It seems  lot of 4-laning in North Carolina lingers at 55 mph in most cases.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 01, 2023, 02:55:57 AM
Quote
It appears US 158 will join I-95 between Exits 173 and 176. A Business US 158 will be designated along the old US 158 East route. The new signage for Exit 176 will feature US 158, NC 46 and NC 186 shields.

If I am reading the plans correctly, it also looks like NC 46 will be truncated on its south end to I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 01, 2023, 02:43:14 PM
Would it be possible to extend this new 4-lane bypass of US 158 west of Interstate 95 to reconnect with existing US 158 west of Belmont and Roanoke Rapids?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 01, 2023, 03:04:24 PM
Would it be possible to extend this new 4-lane bypass of US 158 west of Interstate 95 to reconnect with existing US 158 west of Belmont and Roanoke Rapids?

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

You could, though, run a nice 4-lane route from I-95 in the the NC 125 area WNW back to US 158 in an arc or by using some of NC 903's routing.  Unsure why they didn't make a bypass that was south of Weldon unless they thought the cost of a new Roanoke River bridge was prohibitive.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 01, 2023, 08:28:47 PM
Well, it won’t be 240 (Asheville) or 840 (Greensboro). There’s no chance in hell 440 will be renumbered.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think I-40 still has the I-440 designation like it used to when they tried the Inner/Outer naming briefly but later abandoning that. I wonder if not being a true continuous loop had anything to do with it other than the supposed difficulty people had understanding that naming convention.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2023, 09:56:40 PM
Theoretically It shouldn't be named 440 because it is only a loop when borrowing a section of I-40.
Quote
But my point is if they were being totally faithful to the numbering I-440 could be something else since It's merely a bypass connecting to I-40 at two points.
I-440 quite literally connects to I-40 on both ends and creates a northern beltway to I-40… what else should it be called (as an interstate)?  :pan:

You’ve described the definition of an even digit 3di route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on May 02, 2023, 01:31:26 PM
This argument is dumb. It was a loop when initially designed. See: I-520.

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

Now only if they'd sign the Broyhill Highway at 60.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 02, 2023, 09:28:35 PM
The reason for I-540 is
This argument is dumb. It was a loop when initially designed. See: I-520.

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

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

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



Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 02, 2023, 09:34:43 PM
Theoretically It shouldn't be named 440 because it is only a loop when borrowing a section of I-40.
Quote
But my point is if they were being totally faithful to the numbering I-440 could be something else since It's merely a bypass connecting to I-40 at two points.
I-440 quite literally connects to I-40 on both ends and creates a northern beltway to I-40… what else should it be called (as an interstate)?  :pan:

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

Ok. I thought that maybe a real continuous loop might be the ideal use of an even number designation. I'm still hoping one day for I-640 to become a reality since that was the original plan way back in 1992.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 02, 2023, 10:21:32 PM
Ok. I thought that maybe a real continuous loop might be the ideal use of an even number designation.
It is a loop, and connects to I-40 on either end.

Quote
I'm still hoping one day for I-640 to become a reality since that was the original plan way back in 1992.
It’s not going to happen. The original plan may have been I-640, but it has since changed to I-540, and only a few road geeks are going to be obsessed with changing a 50+ year old designation (by the time NC-540 is untolled) by changing the first number only to even.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2023, 08:04:56 PM
NCDOT awards an $11.7 million contract to replace the narrow 1951 bridges over Irish Buffalo Creek on US 29/601 in Concord. This will be a complex project working on a heavily traveled street in an urban area with strict restrictions. It won’t be completed before fall 2026. Someone from Concord can maybe explain the name of the creek.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 04, 2023, 08:10:22 PM
There's also a Dutch Buffalo Creek.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 04, 2023, 09:46:31 PM
Ok. I thought that maybe a real continuous loop might be the ideal use of an even number designation.
It is a loop, and connects to I-40 on either end.

Quote
I'm still hoping one day for I-640 to become a reality since that was the original plan way back in 1992.
It’s not going to happen. The original plan may have been I-640, but it has since changed to I-540, and only a few road geeks are going to be obsessed with changing a 50+ year old designation (by the time NC-540 is untolled) by changing the first number only to even.

OK. Please list some other loops around the country with odd 1st digit numbering. I'm genuinely curious.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52870614157_dc99d06915_h.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6j1d1by42w)540 (https://www.flickr.com/gp/151506681@N05/6j1d1by42w) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 04, 2023, 10:56:26 PM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on May 05, 2023, 02:36:54 AM
NCDOT awards an $11.7 million contract to replace the narrow 1951 bridges over Irish Buffalo Creek on US 29/601 in Concord. This will be a complex project working on a heavily traveled street in an urban area with strict restrictions. It won’t be completed before fall 2026. Someone from Concord can maybe explain the name of the creek.



I recall a few years ago during a couple of other nearby bridge replacements along US 29 (over the Rocky River near Charlotte Motor Speedway, and over the railroad tracks near the NC 73 West intersection), they employed the use of a temporary span in order to maintain at least two lanes in each direction at all times.  I’m sure they’ll use this method again.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 05, 2023, 08:05:44 AM
NCDOT awards an $11.7 million contract to replace the narrow 1951 bridges over Irish Buffalo Creek on US 29/601 in Concord. This will be a complex project working on a heavily traveled street in an urban area with strict restrictions. It won’t be completed before fall 2026. Someone from Concord can maybe explain the name of the creek.



The Irish Buffalo Creek is named after nearby scotch-Irish settlers.  Same with the also mentioned Dutch Buffalo Creek - after Dutch settlers.

I highly recommended anyone interested in how or the stories behind how some NC towns and creeks were named to consider buying the NC Gazetteer of Place Names. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 02:25:41 PM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 05, 2023, 02:38:55 PM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this was discussed extensively over the past couple of years as a bunch of rerouting was happening and approved by the AASHTO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 03:38:40 PM
Yeah but that area seems to often flip flop. I-85 and I-40 where the latter got moved and back later.

Typical NC.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 05, 2023, 04:24:24 PM
Yeah but that area seems to often flip flop. I-85 and I-40 where the latter got moved and back later.

Typical NC.


Typical? naw. You read too much on it. It was being discussed years ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 05, 2023, 04:30:54 PM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.

Most of the revised US 70 routing from High Point to Greensboro has never been US 70-anything.  Only the first 5.5 miles of the overlay with NC 68 has been US 70 or 70A in the past.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 05, 2023, 05:40:45 PM
Yeah but that area seems to often flip flop. I-85 and I-40 where the latter got moved and back later.

Typical NC.


Typical? naw. You read too much on it. It was being discussed years ago.

Look at Wilmington also part of the state. US 17 flip flopped back and forth there. US 117 is an example. US 220 is another.

I’m not talking specifically about US 70.  I’m talking about the state as a whole.  It’s news to me the US 70 thing cause I didn’t pay close attention earlier to the maps. I just noticed it at recent look as it suddenly hit me at that look as I’ve seen the maps before, but it didn’t hit me then. It happens and as far as recent or past discussions go, I’m sure ( and hope) it happened, but NC is not a state I follow much like Florida and NJ.

I’m not implying it’s news or a current event, just that I noticed it and think it’s interesting despite the sarcastic typical remark.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 05, 2023, 07:03:05 PM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this was discussed extensively over the past couple of years as a bunch of rerouting was happening and approved by the AASHTO.
Is there signage yet on the relocated US 70? It is not shown yet on Google Maps.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on May 05, 2023, 07:40:18 PM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this was discussed extensively over the past couple of years as a bunch of rerouting was happening and approved by the AASHTO.
Is there signage yet on the relocated US 70? It is not shown yet on Google Maps.

I drove some of Wendover in February and did not see any US 70 signage, but I did see some old signage that will probably be replaced when it is signed (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218355652723179&set=a.10218355707644552).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on May 07, 2023, 09:12:47 AM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.

The rule is that an interstate that connects to another interstate has an even first-digit, so its not in compliance. That said, they got a waiver from AASHTO back when I-495 was first setup and that waiver still exists to this day. It is not likely for the AASHTO or FHWA to demand a designation change in the future.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 07, 2023, 07:15:46 PM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.

The rule is that an interstate that connects to another interstate has an even first-digit, so its not in compliance. That said, they got a waiver from AASHTO back when I-495 was first setup and that waiver still exists to this day. It is not likely for the AASHTO or FHWA to demand a designation change in the future.
No. The rule is, if a spur interstate leaves its parent and does not return (to its parent) then it has an odd number first digit. There is a long list of 3di’s that do not return to their parent but do connect to a different interstate. These include I-335 Kansas, I-335 Illinois, I-170 Missouri, I-196 Michigan, I-165 Kentucky, I-390 New York, and I-395 Connecticut/Massachusetts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on May 07, 2023, 09:14:54 PM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.

The rule is that an interstate that connects to another interstate has an even first-digit, so its not in compliance. That said, they got a waiver from AASHTO back when I-495 was first setup and that waiver still exists to this day. It is not likely for the AASHTO or FHWA to demand a designation change in the future.
No. The rule is, if a spur interstate leaves its parent and does not return (to its parent) then it has an odd number first digit. There is a long list of 3di’s that do not return to their parent but do connect to a different interstate. These include I-335 Kansas, I-335 Illinois, I-170 Missouri, I-196 Michigan, I-165 Kentucky, I-390 New York, and I-395 Connecticut/Massachusetts.

There are also many examples where there are even digits on 3di's that do not return to the parent.  NC alone has 4: I-285, I-495, I-685, I-274

AASHO made Virginia renumber I-364 to I-464 specifically because it connected to 2 interstates.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 07, 2023, 09:16:32 PM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.

The rule is that an interstate that connects to another interstate has an even first-digit, so its not in compliance. That said, they got a waiver from AASHTO back when I-495 was first setup and that waiver still exists to this day. It is not likely for the AASHTO or FHWA to demand a designation change in the future.
No. The rule is, if a spur interstate leaves its parent and does not return (to its parent) then it has an odd number first digit. There is a long list of 3di’s that do not return to their parent but do connect to a different interstate. These include I-335 Kansas, I-335 Illinois, I-170 Missouri, I-196 Michigan, I-165 Kentucky, I-390 New York, and I-395 Connecticut/Massachusetts.

Plenty of counter-examples that support the "rule" Washu noted...I-271 OH, I-270 MO/IL, I-476 PA, I-225 CO to name a few.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ran4sh on May 07, 2023, 09:24:15 PM
In other words:

These states are wrong: CT IL KS KY MA MI MO NY

And these states are right: CO IL MO NC OH PA VA and I'll add GA due to I-675 having an even first digit.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on May 11, 2023, 09:59:50 AM
Some more information regarding the I-95 / I-85 / I-295 numbering in Virginia from Roads to the Future listed below.

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

The new I-85 section south of Petersburg was never built. The new I-95 east of Petersburg and Richmond was built from 1984 to 1992. The state and federal project numbers on the design documents were for I-95. As sections opened to traffic, southward from US-60 east of Richmond, they extended the I-295 corridor southward and carried the I-295 signage. When the road was completed, it all carried the I-295 signage. The decision was made to leave the I-95 and I-85 signage on the RPT, and to sign the new road as I-295. Incidentally, when the new road opened, the tolls ceased on the RPT, and the toll booths were removed within six months.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com/RPT_I295.html
Thanks for this explanation. As a Tar Heel now for many years my comment is that it’s unfortunate that the southern bypass of Petersburg wasn’t built; it would give us NC folks an easy way to use I-295 to avoid the former RPT.

Agreed. I actually will take I-85 north to I-95 south to I-295 north around back to I-95 just because it's a more pleasant drive and the speed limit on I-295 is 70 MPH throughout.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MBHockey13 on May 11, 2023, 10:04:48 AM
I was looking at the latest RM map. The 2023 addition shows that US 70 was realigned in Greensboro where it always remained with BL I-85. Older maps show a US 29/ 70 ALT through the city where US 70:runs now.

NC sure loves to flip flop routes.
I could be mistaken, but I believe this was discussed extensively over the past couple of years as a bunch of rerouting was happening and approved by the AASHTO.
Is there signage yet on the relocated US 70? It is not shown yet on Google Maps.

I drove some of Wendover in February and did not see any US 70 signage, but I did see some old signage that will probably be replaced when it is signed (https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218355652723179&set=a.10218355707644552).

No signage yet and I live almost right next to Wendover. I did notice they removed both the US-70 shield and the Business I-85 shield on a couple of new BGS's on I-40 so now that section of old I-85 between I-40 and the loop is now just US-29. It's been slow going on the shield changes. They still have the loop off I-40 marked as I-785 only and haven't added the I-840 shields.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 12, 2023, 07:27:54 PM
North Carolina's plans to expand passenger rail to Asheville is slowly coming into focus.  A feasibility study for the western expansion sees three daily round trips, 100,000 annual riders, a 3 hour 25 ride, and four stops between Salisbury and Asheville.  Service would begin around 2035 at a cost of over $650 million.

Additional info and some questions at the blog.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/05/north-carolinas-amtrak-expansion-to.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 12, 2023, 08:59:10 PM
Wish it could happen sooner.  I live in Morganton, and would love to hit Raleigh or Ashville via train,  sad that it may happen in my early 70's.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on May 16, 2023, 09:12:35 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on May 16, 2023, 09:30:37 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.

Yes on the first part. Formerly signed as Business I-40 once the bypass was built, said business route was decommissioned a few years ago.

US 311 has been getting incremently chopped off for some time now. That second part sounds about right but I can't be certain.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: dfilpus on May 16, 2023, 10:09:14 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.
Correct. When the I-40 bypass was constructed around W-S in the late 1990's, it incorporated  part of the existing US 311 freeway from the current split to US 52. The freeway continued west for a short way. I think that was numbered NC 150. This segment was rebuilt into I-40 and NC 150 was rerouted through W-S. US 311 remained signed on I-40 and US 52 until the 2010's when it was removed from I-74, I-40 and US 52. The southern end of US 311 was moved from Randleman to W-S.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2023, 01:49:52 PM
All US 311 signage south of US 52's Exit 110B should have been removed by now. There shouldn't be any lingering signage left over, although looking at the corridor via Street View, there is still some signage that still needs to be removed. Google Maps should also remove the US 311 shield from US 52, Interstate 40, Interstate 74, and County Highway 2270.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on May 17, 2023, 01:18:19 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.
Correct. When the I-40 bypass was constructed around W-S in the late 1990's, it incorporated  part of the existing US 311 freeway from the current split to US 52. The freeway continued west for a short way. I think that was numbered NC 150. This segment was rebuilt into I-40 and NC 150 was rerouted through W-S. US 311 remained signed on I-40 and US 52 until the 2010's when it was removed from I-74, I-40 and US 52. The southern end of US 311 was moved from Randleman to W-S.

The short freeway segment that existed before I-40 was moved from current US-421, was called Corporation Freeway, was then not part of NC-150.  NC-150 ran North from Davidson County, on Peter's Creek Pkwy to current US-421 (also then I-40 and US-158)  .  Then followed US-421 South towards Kernersville.  The short freeway segment was a transition from then Corporation Pkwy (now part of Silas Creek Pkwy), and was called Corporation Freeway.  It was only a freeway after Main Street which was then an at-grade intersection with a traffic light.  This short freeway section ended just east of US-52 and transitioned to NC-109 and US-311 (High Point Rd) . First US-311 Freeway was built from east of where Corporation Freeway ended, to High Point, When the relocated I-40 was completed in the early 1990's (maybe by 1992), Corporation Freeway was merged into it along with part of US-311 west of the current split of I-40 and US-311 (now I-74)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendancy66 on May 17, 2023, 02:13:25 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.
Correct. When the I-40 bypass was constructed around W-S in the late 1990's, it incorporated  part of the existing US 311 freeway from the current split to US 52. The freeway continued west for a short way. I think that was numbered NC 150. This segment was rebuilt into I-40 and NC 150 was rerouted through W-S. US 311 remained signed on I-40 and US 52 until the 2010's when it was removed from I-74, I-40 and US 52. The southern end of US 311 was moved from Randleman to W-S.

The short freeway segment that existed before I-40 was moved from current US-421, was called Corporation Freeway, was then not part of NC-150.  NC-150 ran North from Davidson County, on Peter's Creek Pkwy to current US-421 (also then I-40 and US-158)  .  Then followed US-421 South towards Kernersville.  The short freeway segment was a transition from then Corporation Pkwy (now part of Silas Creek Pkwy), and was called Corporation Freeway.  It was only a freeway after Main Street which was then an at-grade intersection with a traffic light.  This short freeway section ended just east of US-52 and transitioned to NC-109 and US-311 (High Point Rd) . First US-311 Freeway was built from east of where Corporation Freeway ended, to High Point, When the relocated I-40 was completed in the early 1990's (maybe by 1992), Corporation Freeway was merged into it along with part of US-311 west of the current split of I-40 and US-311 (now I-74)
Correction to my last post. After looking at map, instead of trying to recall from memory.  At that time, NC-150 only went up Peters Creek Pkwy to Corporation Pkwy not US-421.  What I was remembering was that going North on US-421 the Peters Creek Pkwy exit was signed TO NC-150 not NC-150 itself.  So previous poster was partially correct that Corporation Pkwy was NC-150, but it leaves before the freeway segment of Corporation Freeway, at I believe what is Main St.  Which I had previously said was an at-grade intersection, but is showing on the map as an interchange  I don't remember it being an interchange until after I-40 was relocated there.  Now also seeing that currently NC-150 does go up to US-421 on Peters Creek Pkwy
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 18, 2023, 07:13:01 PM
Beginning July 10 the number of trains each way between Raleigh and Charlotte will increase from 4 to 5 daily.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-18-more-trains-new-schedules-bc-by-train.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on May 18, 2023, 11:42:46 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/efW12JdBED5JwcVA6
Question. The freeway that spurs off the I-40 freeway in the GSV image was the original alignment of I-40 in the 1980’s.

I have a state map from 1987 showing one E-W freeway only through Winston- Salem with US 311 ( now I-74) terminating at  US 52 ( nowI-285 ).   If I’m correct I-40 between I-285/ US 52 and I-74 existed in the 1980’s as US 311 into Downtown.
Correct. When the I-40 bypass was constructed around W-S in the late 1990's, it incorporated  part of the existing US 311 freeway from the current split to US 52. The freeway continued west for a short way. I think that was numbered NC 150. This segment was rebuilt into I-40 and NC 150 was rerouted through W-S. US 311 remained signed on I-40 and US 52 until the 2010's when it was removed from I-74, I-40 and US 52. The southern end of US 311 was moved from Randleman to W-S.

The short freeway segment that existed before I-40 was moved from current US-421, was called Corporation Freeway, was then not part of NC-150.  NC-150 ran North from Davidson County, on Peter's Creek Pkwy to current US-421 (also then I-40 and US-158)  .  Then followed US-421 South towards Kernersville.  The short freeway segment was a transition from then Corporation Pkwy (now part of Silas Creek Pkwy), and was called Corporation Freeway.  It was only a freeway after Main Street which was then an at-grade intersection with a traffic light.  This short freeway section ended just east of US-52 and transitioned to NC-109 and US-311 (High Point Rd) . First US-311 Freeway was built from east of where Corporation Freeway ended, to High Point, When the relocated I-40 was completed in the early 1990's (maybe by 1992), Corporation Freeway was merged into it along with part of US-311 west of the current split of I-40 and US-311 (now I-74)
Correction to my last post. After looking at map, instead of trying to recall from memory.  At that time, NC-150 only went up Peters Creek Pkwy to Corporation Pkwy not US-421.  What I was remembering was that going North on US-421 the Peters Creek Pkwy exit was signed TO NC-150 not NC-150 itself.  So previous poster was partially correct that Corporation Pkwy was NC-150, but it leaves before the freeway segment of Corporation Freeway, at I believe what is Main St.  Which I had previously said was an at-grade intersection, but is showing on the map as an interchange  I don't remember it being an interchange until after I-40 was relocated there.  Now also seeing that currently NC-150 does go up to US-421 on Peters Creek Pkwy

Looking at Historical Viewers for Winston-Salem, I went back to 1987 and checked it out. It looked like NC-150 turned right on Silas Creek from Peters Creek and were briefly on Corporation Parkway before it leaves. It either got off at US-52 interchange and followed it to Sprague St (the next exit on US-52), or it leaves at Clemmonsville Rd exit and followed it to Sprague St.

UPDATE: According to VAHighways.com, NC-150 did indeed was on Corporation towards US-52/NC 8. It followed US-52 towards Sprague St and exited there until the 90's.

"In 1961, NC 150 was removed from Acadia, Broad and Sprague west of Main St and placed on the new Corporation Pkwy and duplexed with US 52/NC 8 Main St north to Sprague."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ahj2000 on May 19, 2023, 01:07:19 AM
Beginning July 10 the number of trains each way between Raleigh and Charlotte will increase from 4 to 5 daily.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-18-more-trains-new-schedules-bc-by-train.aspx
Great news! More trains = a more convenient schedule and leads to more people using them.
Wonder if there will ever be a second Carolinian to DC/NY.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 19, 2023, 10:06:14 PM
Beginning July 10 the number of trains each way between Raleigh and Charlotte will increase from 4 to 5 daily.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-18-more-trains-new-schedules-bc-by-train.aspx
Great news! More trains = a more convenient schedule and leads to more people using them.
Wonder if there will ever be a second Carolinian to DC/NY.

VA now owns the abandoned S line. As soon as NC/VA can pony up $4 billion to ressurrect 100 miles of the S line, you will then get new service from Raleigh direct to Richmond/D.C. that doesn't go through Rocky Mount.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 19, 2023, 10:13:52 PM
Presently I-540 is in compliance with these rules, because it does not return to I-40; it ends at I-87. If (1) NC 540 is completed, (2) the tolls are removed, (3) NCDOT asks for an interstate designation, and (4) these rules are still in effect (this is now pretty far in the future, after 2050), then the Feds might demand that it be renumbered.

The rule is that an interstate that connects to another interstate has an even first-digit, so its not in compliance. That said, they got a waiver from AASHTO back when I-495 was first setup and that waiver still exists to this day. It is not likely for the AASHTO or FHWA to demand a designation change in the future.

Forget parent interstates or connecting to another interstate.

I want to see completed interstate loops in the US that begin with an odd 1st number.

Raleigh ultimately will have a complete outer loop, even if it's 60% tolled until bond repayment, I say it will be renamed with an even first number.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2023, 11:17:25 PM
Raleigh ultimately will have a complete outer loop, even if it's 60% tolled until bond repayment, I say it will be renamed with an even first number.
We can all say different things. I say it won’t be changed, because it will cause more confusion than help. It appeases roadgeeks and that’s about it. And only some - I don’t think it should be changed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 20, 2023, 06:41:39 AM
Beginning July 10 the number of trains each way between Raleigh and Charlotte will increase from 4 to 5 daily.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-18-more-trains-new-schedules-bc-by-train.aspx

To add to this, NCDOT Rail Division is doing a feasibility study of adding passenger rail service from Raleigh to Greenville via Wilson.

(Cookies may need to be enabled to see article)

https://restorationnewsmedia.com/articles/wilsontimes/passenger-rail-service-from-wilson-to-greenville-studied/?pub=wilsontimes (https://restorationnewsmedia.com/articles/wilsontimes/passenger-rail-service-from-wilson-to-greenville-studied/?pub=wilsontimes)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on May 21, 2023, 11:51:40 PM
Raleigh ultimately will have a complete outer loop, even if it's 60% tolled until bond repayment, I say it will be renamed with an even first number.
We can all say different things. I say it won’t be changed, because it will cause more confusion than help. It appeases roadgeeks and that’s about it. And only some - I don’t think it should be changed.

Well at least acknowledge that the entire US interstate system follows specific naming rules, and acknowledge you can't cite another completed loop in any of the 50 states that begins with an odd first digit number.

It seems like you think your opinion should hold more weight than the 75 year old Eisenhower system's official rules.

 I won't comment again on this, but I thought this forum was for people who enjoy our highways and the clear rules about them that help the general public. 540 was always meant to be temporary because they always knew it would take 30 plus years to complete and the 5 tells drivers that it is a single line highway from point A to Point B.

In 10 years it will no longer be that, the day that it will get you back to the same spot you started, at which time the 5 would confuse and misguide the (at minimum) 30% of the population who depend on the numbers to navigate the system.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2023, 01:07:16 AM
at which time the 5 would confuse and misguide the (at minimum) 30% of the population who depend on the numbers to navigate the system.
Citation needed
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 22, 2023, 08:54:57 AM
It will eventually get an even digit 3di........287.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 22, 2023, 10:46:30 AM
I doubt there will be any additional 3dis of Interstate 87 in North Carolina, so the only 287 will be the existing one in New Jersey and New York. Personally, I agree that 540 should have been 640 to begin with. However, the only way to bring about a change in the numbering of the Raleigh beltway is to go back in time and try to persuade the powers-that-be to go with the 640 designation (fat chance!).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on May 22, 2023, 12:34:35 PM
I doubt there will be any additional 3dis of Interstate 87 in North Carolina, so the only 287 will be the existing one in New Jersey and New York. Personally, I agree that 540 should have been 640 to begin with. However, the only way to bring about a change in the numbering of the Raleigh beltway is to go back in time and try to persuade the powers-that-be to go with the 640 designation (fat chance!).
Exactly this… while I-640 would’ve made sense to begin with, they are not going to go back after 40-50 years of “540”  established and swap the 5 for a 6. That is going to only add additional confusion. You would confuse more people changing the number vs. the odd digit confusing it’s beltway status, especially in a time where everyone uses Google Maps, Waze, and other GPS services for routing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 22, 2023, 05:44:15 PM
Raleigh ultimately will have a complete outer loop, even if it's 60% tolled until bond repayment, I say it will be renamed with an even first number.
We can all say different things. I say it won’t be changed, because it will cause more confusion than help. It appeases roadgeeks and that’s about it. And only some - I don’t think it should be changed.

Well at least acknowledge that the entire US interstate system follows specific naming rules, and acknowledge you can't cite another completed loop in any of the 50 states that begins with an odd first digit number.

It seems like you think your opinion should hold more weight than the 75 year old Eisenhower system's official rules.

 I won't comment again on this, but I thought this forum was for people who enjoy our highways and the clear rules about them that help the general public. 540 was always meant to be temporary because they always knew it would take 30 plus years to complete and the 5 tells drivers that it is a single line highway from point A to Point B.

In 10 years it will no longer be that, the day that it will get you back to the same spot you started, at which time the 5 would confuse and misguide the (at minimum) 30% of the population who depend on the numbers to navigate the system.
There are indeed specific numbering rules. Bureaucrats have been known to make mistakes in applying specific rules. They did in this case. The number 540 is a mistake. The discussion in the forum is about whether this mistake should be corrected. Reasonable people can disagree about this and airing disagreements honestly is an important function of an online forum.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on May 22, 2023, 08:47:17 PM
It will eventually get an even digit 3di........287.

Screw it, let’s get really weird.

642
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on May 22, 2023, 10:35:56 PM
There are indeed specific numbering rules. Bureaucrats have been known to make mistakes in applying specific rules. They did in this case. The number 540 is a mistake. The discussion in the forum is about whether this mistake should be corrected. Reasonable people can disagree about this and airing disagreements honestly is an important function of an online forum.

Does anybody remember whether it was the FHWA or AASHTO that rejected NCDOT's original request to number the Raleigh Northern Arc as I-640?  I've tried searching several times and can no longer find this information in the NCDOT archives (nor any of the Roadgeek listings).  [Indeed, I was skeptical about whether North Carolina could build a qualified "loop" to deserve an "even 3DI", but nobody expected the Triangle to grow to over 2 million almost overnight].
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 23, 2023, 09:18:48 AM
There are indeed specific numbering rules. Bureaucrats have been known to make mistakes in applying specific rules. They did in this case. The number 540 is a mistake. The discussion in the forum is about whether this mistake should be corrected. Reasonable people can disagree about this and airing disagreements honestly is an important function of an online forum.

Does anybody remember whether it was the FHWA or AASHTO that rejected NCDOT's original request to number the Raleigh Northern Arc as I-640?  I've tried searching several times and can no longer find this information in the NCDOT archives (nor any of the Roadgeek listings).  [Indeed, I was skeptical about whether North Carolina could build a qualified "loop" to deserve an "even 3DI", but nobody expected the Triangle to grow to over 2 million almost overnight].

Did some digging:

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on May 23, 2023, 09:49:46 AM
but I was told this is an unprecedented, egregious violation of federal law
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on May 23, 2023, 11:33:05 AM
but I was told this is an unprecedented, egregious violation of federal law

NC = Zero Fucks Given
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 24, 2023, 08:50:47 AM
but I was told this is an unprecedented, egregious violation of federal law

It's not a LAW violation.  It's technically a numbering violation, but the Interstate system is riddled with such.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: BlueRidge on May 24, 2023, 09:09:24 AM
but I was told this is an unprecedented, egregious violation of federal law

It's not a LAW violation.  It's technically a numbering violation, but the Interstate system is riddled with such.

”˜Twas but a flippant remark
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on May 24, 2023, 09:54:55 AM
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on May 29, 2023, 08:52:07 PM
Looking south at the future U.S. 221 Rutherfordton Bypass from Old U.S. 221.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936248874_203aa1aff3_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936248874_6048c4e506_o.jpg)

Looking south towards the U.S. 64 interchange.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936091686_0f0c6e7533_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936091686_603242f283_o.jpg)

Looking north at the future U.S. 64 overpass from current U.S. 64.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936541398_15c8e56d7b_b.jpg) (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52936541398_4eed5a52f6_o.jpg)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: jdunlop on May 31, 2023, 02:06:02 PM
There are indeed specific numbering rules. Bureaucrats have been known to make mistakes in applying specific rules. They did in this case. The number 540 is a mistake. The discussion in the forum is about whether this mistake should be corrected. Reasonable people can disagree about this and airing disagreements honestly is an important function of an online forum.

Does anybody remember whether it was the FHWA or AASHTO that rejected NCDOT's original request to number the Raleigh Northern Arc as I-640?  I've tried searching several times and can no longer find this information in the NCDOT archives (nor any of the Roadgeek listings).  [Indeed, I was skeptical about whether North Carolina could build a qualified "loop" to deserve an "even 3DI", but nobody expected the Triangle to grow to over 2 million almost overnight].

Did some digging:

  • Nothing I was able to find in the AASHTO SCOH minutes suggests that they rejected 640.
  • Per Brian LeBlanc's former I-540 webpage (http://web.archive.org/web/20160304034830/http://www.wakecountyroads.com/i540.html), NCDOT decided in 2002 that they would retain the 540 number instead of requesting it be changes to 640 upon completion.
  • NCDOT further clarified this in their 2013 request for I-495.  I was able to find that letter (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2013_12_09.pdf) (3rd page of the PDF) in the NCDOT Route Changes dataset.  Their letter to FHWA requested that 540 remain as such "due to public expectation, historic controversy, and economic burden of sign replacement.".  They further cite precedents in I-376 PA, I-390 NY, and I-590 NY.

My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on May 31, 2023, 04:55:15 PM
Traffic shift tonight on I-440 at Wade Avenue.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-31-i-440-wade-traffic-shift-closure.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-05-31-i-440-wade-traffic-shift-closure.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on May 31, 2023, 06:56:59 PM
Quote
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 03, 2023, 06:03:30 PM
Quote
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.

is there any complete interstate loop anywhere in the US that begins with an odd number?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 03, 2023, 06:56:10 PM
Quote
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.

is there any complete interstate loop anywhere in the US that begins with an odd number?
No, and I-540/NC 540 won’t be a complete loop for the next ten years, more or less. And even then it won’t be a complete interstate loop because more than half of it will be a toll road that can’t have interstate signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hurricanehink on June 04, 2023, 09:34:59 PM
Quote
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.

is there any complete interstate loop anywhere in the US that begins with an odd number?

Interstate 520 arguably counts, which forms a beltway around Augusta, Georgia along with I-20.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2023, 01:16:28 AM
^ I-376 in Pennsylvania, as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on June 05, 2023, 04:05:07 PM
Interstate 520 arguably counts, which forms a beltway around Augusta, Georgia along with I-20.

I don't think there's any argument about it. It meets I-20 on both ends, making it a complete loop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 06, 2023, 08:54:42 AM
My wife and I were headed to the Orange County Sportsplex on Wednesday evening (Sep 14) when we encountered an improptu detour on NC-86 where the bridge over I-85 was closed.  I've been swamped this week, but now that I am finally getting back to normal we find that the accident occurred after midnight on Tuesday night.  I-85 [westbound] was still down to one lane at noontime today, and I am not sure whether NCDOT will get both lanes open anytime soon.  Almost all of the paint on the span over the southbound lanes was intensely blackened by the fire.

The NC-86 bridge over I-85 at the Hampton Pointe exit (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) has finally reopened.  It was still closed as of Friday evening (Sept 23).  "Detour" signs for I-40 (Alternate I-40) have been posted all around the area in advance of the I-40 widening, and it was odd having a real detour on top of it.  Even stranger is that the Alternate I-40 detour on NC-86 northbound is marked for both I-40 westbound (via I-85 southbound) and for I-40 eastbound (via I-85 northbound and the Durham Freeway).

Sorry for not posting sooner.  The aftermath of this accident came back to haunt last week (https://www.hillsboroughnc.gov/news/news/2023/6/1/1530/nc-86-bridge-northbound-lane-remains-closed-pending-repairs.html), as the I-85 Hampton Pointe overpass (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) was again closed last Wednesday (May 31) at the beginning of a follow-up inspection.  After further inspection, the portion of the structure beneath the southbound lane was found to be safe and reopened the next day.  The posted detour uses I-85 [eastbound]; much of the traffic uses Old Number 10 and Lawrence Road as a bypass route.  NC-86 is still posted as "Alternate I-40" construction route from the New Hope Church Road exit (Exit 263) and the I-85 Split (Exit 259).  This bridge outage doesn't affect [southbound] "Alternate I-40" traffic.

I don't recall ever seeing an emergency bridge outage that affected only traffic in one direction.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 06, 2023, 06:22:17 PM
The NCDOT Board officially approved the 2024-2033 STIP document today, it is available at:
https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/STIPDocuments1/NCDOT%20Current%20STIP.pdf)

Did not see too many changes to Future Interstate projects from the previous draft. Upgrading US 74 to interstate standards between NC 41 and US 76 is unfunded. The upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards from the Rockingham Bypass to Laurinburg is scheduled for 2031. Only one project on the Winston-Salem Beltway Western Section, from US 52 to NC 67 is funded, with construction to start in 2030. No projects listed regarding upgrading US 52 between the Beltway and Mt. Airy. Upgrading US 29 between Greensboro and Reidsville is still funded work not until 2031. Only 1 of the 3 projects to extend I-795 to I-40 is funded. The upgrade and widening of US 64/264 to become I-87 between Rolesville and  Zebulon is unfunded. Pavement rehab projects for US 264 to upgrade to I-587 still scheduled for 2025. Will be updating my pages with this new information soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 06, 2023, 07:59:02 PM
I-795 near the Wayne/Wilson county line is expected to be closed for 4 hours due to a massive pile up.

Jesus...WTF caused this?

https://www.wral.com/story/i-795-closed-near-wilson-wayne-counties-after-massive-pile-up/20898216/ (https://www.wral.com/story/i-795-closed-near-wilson-wayne-counties-after-massive-pile-up/20898216/)

EDIT: The article has been updated. Apparently, there was zero visibility due to smoke from a nearby burning wheat field.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 12, 2023, 05:20:54 PM
Quote
My vague memory was that it was FHWA who rejected the I-640 designation when it was first requested (sometime in the early '90s IIRC.)  The comment then was that the even numbered designation would "confuse" drivers because the even number implied that it was a loop, and that it would take decades for the road to connect back to I-40.  (I believe this might have been before the Beltline was designated as I-440, but things blend together after so many years.  Could somebody with the researching chops remind me when that happened?)

So, ironically, the I-640 designation was rejected because it might confuse drivers, and now the I-540 designation is kept (to many erroneously) to supposedly prevent (local) driver confusion.  If this was the Army, it would definitely be a SNAFU.
The Beltline was designated 440 in 1991. I believe you’re correct that the 640/540 decision was in that year or very soon thereafter.

is there any complete interstate loop anywhere in the US that begins with an odd number?

Interstate 520 arguably counts, which forms a beltway around Augusta, Georgia along with I-20.

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on June 15, 2023, 11:31:09 AM
My wife and I were headed to the Orange County Sportsplex on Wednesday evening (Sep 14) when we encountered an improptu detour on NC-86 where the bridge over I-85 was closed.  I've been swamped this week, but now that I am finally getting back to normal we find that the accident occurred after midnight on Tuesday night.  I-85 [westbound] was still down to one lane at noontime today, and I am not sure whether NCDOT will get both lanes open anytime soon.  Almost all of the paint on the span over the southbound lanes was intensely blackened by the fire.

The NC-86 bridge over I-85 at the Hampton Pointe exit (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) has finally reopened.  It was still closed as of Friday evening (Sept 23).  "Detour" signs for I-40 (Alternate I-40) have been posted all around the area in advance of the I-40 widening, and it was odd having a real detour on top of it.  Even stranger is that the Alternate I-40 detour on NC-86 northbound is marked for both I-40 westbound (via I-85 southbound) and for I-40 eastbound (via I-85 northbound and the Durham Freeway).

Sorry for not posting sooner.  The aftermath of this accident came back to haunt last week (https://www.hillsboroughnc.gov/news/news/2023/6/1/1530/nc-86-bridge-northbound-lane-remains-closed-pending-repairs.html), as the I-85 Hampton Pointe overpass (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) was again closed last Wednesday (May 31) at the beginning of a follow-up inspection.  After further inspection, the portion of the structure beneath the southbound lane was found to be safe and reopened the next day.  The posted detour uses I-85 [eastbound]; much of the traffic uses Old Number 10 and Lawrence Road as a bypass route.  NC-86 is still posted as "Alternate I-40" construction route from the New Hope Church Road exit (Exit 263) and the I-85 Split (Exit 259).  This bridge outage doesn't affect [southbound] "Alternate I-40" traffic.

I don't recall ever seeing an emergency bridge outage that affected only traffic in one direction.
NCDOT press release about upcoming nightly closures of I-85 South at the NC 86 exit starting next week to allow for bridge repairs:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 15, 2023, 08:57:06 PM
^^^
That is quite fortunate.  This detour is now beginning to adversely impact the volume of customers at both the Walmart and Home Depot at Hampton Pointe.  On the other hand, I'm getting spoiled not having to wait in line at either of those stores.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on June 15, 2023, 09:13:08 PM
<snipped> The aftermath of this accident came back to haunt last week (https://www.hillsboroughnc.gov/news/news/2023/6/1/1530/nc-86-bridge-northbound-lane-remains-closed-pending-repairs.html), as the I-85 Hampton Pointe overpass (Hillsborough/Chapel Hill, Exit 165) was again closed last Wednesday (May 31) at the beginning of a follow-up inspection.  After further inspection, the portion of the structure beneath the southbound lane was found to be safe and reopened the next day.  The posted detour uses I-85 [eastbound]; much of the traffic uses Old Number 10 and Lawrence Road as a bypass route.  NC-86 is still posted as "Alternate I-40" construction route from the New Hope Church Road exit (Exit 263) and the I-85 Split (Exit 259).  This bridge outage doesn't affect [southbound] "Alternate I-40" traffic.

I don't recall ever seeing an emergency bridge outage that affected only traffic in one direction.

NCDOT press release about upcoming nightly closures of I-85 South at the NC 86 exit starting next week to allow for bridge repairs:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx)

Correction.  Both the article that Bob Malme posted and the article that I posted refer to an accident that occurred on May 31, 2023 where a big rig carrying construction equipment collided with the overpass.  The previous incident that I was referring to was a fiery accident beneath that same overpass on September 14, 2022 (discussed upstream).  I totally missed that the current closure was due to a separate incident.  Sorry, but my main source for discussing this type of local emergency passed away about 20 months ago.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 15, 2023, 09:55:03 PM
The NC 86 bridge over I-85 is substandard. It is higher over the northbound lanes but it descends over the southbound lanes. There is a warning sign giving the vertical clearance for the right hand southbound lane to be only 13’10” , 2’2”  below the interstate standing. A truck carrying construction equipment hit it, damaging the northbound side of the bridge and causing NCDOT to close Nc 86 northbound.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2023, 12:02:06 PM
The overpass at the NC 86 interchange looks pretty old: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0588965,-79.0826976,3a,75y,71.62h,96.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQWiRfUAwPJ4YDTU5J11iZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. I don't suppose there are plans to reconstruct the interchange, but it would most certainly be given more vertical clearance whenever it is reconstructed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 16, 2023, 05:30:41 PM
The overpass at the NC 86 interchange looks pretty old: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0588965,-79.0826976,3a,75y,71.62h,96.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQWiRfUAwPJ4YDTU5J11iZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. I don't suppose there are plans to reconstruct the interchange, but it would most certainly be given more vertical clearance whenever it is reconstructed.
This is one of the oldest sections of I-85, opened in 1960. Long range the intention is to rebuild the freeway between the I-40 split and Durham with at least 6 lanes, but the new STIP includes only preliminary engineering for the project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on June 19, 2023, 03:58:55 PM
The overpass at the NC 86 interchange looks pretty old: https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0588965,-79.0826976,3a,75y,71.62h,96.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQWiRfUAwPJ4YDTU5J11iZA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu. I don't suppose there are plans to reconstruct the interchange, but it would most certainly be given more vertical clearance whenever it is reconstructed.
This is one of the oldest sections of I-85, opened in 1960. Long range the intention is to rebuild the freeway between the I-40 split and Durham with at least 6 lanes, but the new STIP includes only preliminary engineering for the project.

The transition between the highway's age at the Durham/Orange county line is very obvious. I'm surprised the NCDOT has allowed the eastern Orange county section to remain basically original, while either side (Durham line and I-40 split) is a wide and modern facility.

Also I hate driving over the NC 86 bridge ever since the initial crash. I lived close by when it happened; i heard it.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on June 19, 2023, 08:10:10 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting this Wednesday to discuss upgrading US-1 between I-540 in Raleigh and Purnell/Harris roads in Wake Forest.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-19-public-meeting-hearing-capital-boulevard-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-19-public-meeting-hearing-capital-boulevard-project.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on June 19, 2023, 08:43:25 PM
NCDOT is holding a public meeting this Wednesday to discuss upgrading US-1 between I-540 in Raleigh and Purnell/Harris roads in Wake Forest.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-19-public-meeting-hearing-capital-boulevard-project.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-19-public-meeting-hearing-capital-boulevard-project.aspx)

Glad to see some movement on this. As I've said before, I often use this road to reach Raleigh from the north. Traffic definitely does get messy there, this is a worthwhile project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 20, 2023, 07:34:25 PM
Wonder how far Capital Blvd will backup southbound at 540 if/when that upgrade is complete. They really should have built that interchange as free flowing with no lights. Add on the heavy traffic coming from a 4 lane wide freeway and tons of lights south of there.....
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on June 20, 2023, 07:50:49 PM
In a perfect world the upgrade would happen at I-440 going northward instead of just I-540, but there's just way too much development south of 540 for that to happen, at least realistically. The interchange with 540 should be tweaked though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 20, 2023, 08:54:59 PM
Per The News & Observer (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article276138666.html), only the first section to Durant Rd. is slated for construction any time soon, starting in late 2025. The remaining sections have been delayed until at least 2029. The total cost has grown from $465 million in 2018 to $750 million today. Right-of-way costs for the first section alone are estimated at $94.3 million, with an additional $184.7 for construction. That's for 1.5 miles of freeway.

The City of Raleigh has developed a plan for the section between the beltlines. Not sure what will come of it, but based on the title, think pedestrian friendly, bike lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, etc. and not a freeway. Will be a boulevard/freeway with interchanges.

The Capital North Corridor Plan: A Future of Choice (https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/CBNFinalReport.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 21, 2023, 01:12:58 AM
Per The News & Observer (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article276138666.html), only the first section to Durant Rd. is slated for construction any time soon, starting in late 2025. The remaining sections have been delayed until at least 2029. The total cost has grown from $465 million in 2018 to $750 million today. Right-of-way costs for the first section alone are estimated at $94.3 million, with an additional $184.7 for construction. That's for 1.5 miles of freeway.

The City of Raleigh has developed a plan for the section between the beltlines. Not sure what will come of it, but based on the title, think pedestrian friendly, bike lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, etc. and not a freeway.

The Capital North Corridor Plan: A Future of Choice (https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/CBNFinalReport.pdf)

Guessing you didn't actually read the report.  My read on it is, yes, it will include bike/ped improvements and BRT.  But they're also intending to convert it into a multiway boulevard (think Roosevelt Blvd in north Philly), but a boulevard where the inner lanes will be controlled-access.  7 interchanges are proposed between 440 and 540...a SPUI at Buffaloe/New Hope Church, and tight diamonds at the remaining locations.

Long-story short, yes it will technically include a freeway.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on June 21, 2023, 08:35:13 AM
Guessing you didn't actually read the report.

Nope.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: NJRoadfan on June 21, 2023, 10:07:45 PM
So long term the plan is to do something similar to what was built along US-19 in Pinellas County Florida. Service roads and SPUIs.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on June 22, 2023, 08:57:04 AM
Sort of...mostly tight diamonds instead of SPUIs...but more landscape-friendly than 19.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on June 28, 2023, 12:03:38 PM
Per The News & Observer (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article276138666.html), only the first section to Durant Rd. is slated for construction any time soon, starting in late 2025. The remaining sections have been delayed until at least 2029. The total cost has grown from $465 million in 2018 to $750 million today. Right-of-way costs for the first section alone are estimated at $94.3 million, with an additional $184.7 for construction. That's for 1.5 miles of freeway.

The City of Raleigh has developed a plan for the section between the beltlines. Not sure what will come of it, but based on the title, think pedestrian friendly, bike lanes, Bus Rapid Transit, etc. and not a freeway. Will be a boulevard/freeway with interchanges.

The Capital North Corridor Plan: A Future of Choice (https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/CBNFinalReport.pdf)

The cover page of the Capital North Plan has the photo reversed. How the Hell did that get overlooked and why hasn't the electronic version been corrected? lol.

The photo is the US1//US401 split.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 01, 2023, 10:10:05 AM
NCDOT announces federal grant awards for several city and town projects:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-30-federal-grants-benefit-communities.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-30-federal-grants-benefit-communities.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 02, 2023, 09:47:14 PM
Richard Petty is a confirmed Roadgeek.  :sombrero:

https://twitter.com/therichardpetty/status/1675562935312175108
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 03, 2023, 10:54:14 AM
Why wasn’t he in Chicago for the big race? I guess he had more important things to do on his birthday.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 05, 2023, 01:53:46 PM
Work to replace the northbound US-13 bridge over the Tar River in Greenville will begin on July 10. The new bridge is expected to be opened in fall 2025.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-05-pitt-county-bridge-replacement.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-05-pitt-county-bridge-replacement.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 05, 2023, 03:11:49 PM
Will the new bridge have emergency shoulders on both sides?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on July 05, 2023, 03:26:21 PM
Will the new bridge have emergency shoulders on both sides?

Four feet on the inside and ten feet on the outside.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: planxtymcgillicuddy on July 05, 2023, 04:14:14 PM
Why wasn’t he in Chicago for the big race? I guess he had more important things to do on his birthday.

Had no reason to be. Between Maury Gallagher and Jimmie Johnson, they pretty much ousted him
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 05, 2023, 05:02:11 PM
Why wasn’t he in Chicago for the big race? I guess he had more important things to do on his birthday.

I do not believe Goody's was sponsoring the race.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on July 06, 2023, 07:18:27 PM
Why wasn’t he in Chicago for the big race? I guess he had more important things to do on his birthday.

I do not believe Goody's was sponsoring the race.

Facebook recently showed me a story on what Aunt Bea's final years were like after settling in Siler City, NC. She had no connection to NC at all other than the Andy Griffith SHow, and previously I had read that locals were afraid to engage with her resulting in a solitary existence.

The story was from a Raleigh man who fortunately rebuked that isolation. He said that Frances Bavier frequently attended live theater performances in Raleigh with him, and she also seemed to enjoy being bombarded by fans while attending these shows.

She is quoted as saying that she chose to relocate to NC because of all the "pretty roads and trees."
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2023, 01:04:54 PM
With North Carolina rumored to have its first Buc-ee's opening up in the next few years, Adam figured he'd stop at one of the remaining original travel centers - the Stuckey's off of Interstate 40 in Old Fort.

Stuckey's began as a pecan stand in rural Georgia in 1937.  By the mid-1970s, it expanded to over 350 locations in 30 states.  However, ownership changes led to the rapid decline of the company into the 1990s.

In 2019, the granddaughter of Stuckey's founder WS Stuckey, Stephanie Stuckey - purchased the company and became CEO.  Under her leadership, Stuckey's has had a slow and steady revival - the company now produces and packages its own private-label candies - including its famous pralines and pecan logs.  Stuckey's now has over 65 franchise locations - including 13 original locations  - and over 200 store-within-a-store concepts.

North Carolina is home to two of the remaining original Stuckey's - Old Fort off of I-40 and Whitakers off of I-95.

The full feature at our sister site Carolina Crossroads:

https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2023/07/stuckeys-old-fort-nc.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 09, 2023, 02:02:21 PM
I stopped there about 3-4 weeks ago, had a dipped cone from DQ.  With you having been there...was the new Parker Pagett bridge open?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 09, 2023, 02:57:28 PM
I stopped there about 3-4 weeks ago, had a dipped cone from DQ.  With you having been there...was the new Parker Pagett bridge open?

No.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 11, 2023, 05:25:35 PM
I am a regular follower of the NCDot contract letting page.  Usually within 24-72 hours after a bid opening date the site is updated to reflect the bid batch for the next month and a 12 projection.  That has not occurred since the June bid opening date.  Have they changed sites?  Are they holding off for passage of the 2024 stop?  Any thoughts.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 12, 2023, 11:46:46 AM
The next letting is on July 18, I suspect the new 12 month list and the August advertisement will be out then. The letting will include the design-build contract for constructing the rest of Toll NC 540 to the Knightdale Bypass/I-87.

Meanwhile, to keep everyone busy, the new 2023-2024 State Transportation Map has been released:
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx)

A quick look shows the typical mix of new, wrong and out of date information. Examples: Both I-885 and I-587 are shown on the state map and appropriate inset maps, but both contain old exit numbers along those routes, or, for the Durham Freeway whose numbers were changed due to I-885. I-74 shields appear on both the US 74 Rockingham Bypass and Maxton Bypass. A 'Toll I-885' shield appears at the northerly end of Toll NC 885 at I-40 on the Raleigh inset map. The Greensboro inset has the NC 74 Winston-Salem Bypass ending at NC 66 (though, due to its dimensions, it looks complete to US 52 on the state map). US 70 is shown on its new route through Greensboro and Business 85 shields have been removed from both US 29 between I-85 and I-40 and along its original route between Lexington and Greensboro. The NC 540 roadway between Bypass NC 55 and I-87 is shown under construction on the state map as is the Hampstead Bypass but other projects such as the Rockingham Bypass for I-73/I-74, I-295 to connect to I-95 and the Havelock Bypass are not.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on July 12, 2023, 01:17:42 PM
July 18 was also the have the rest of the Shelby bypass.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 13, 2023, 10:43:53 PM
If you guys are driving to Greensboro on I-40 East tomorrow, be warned that NCDOT will close I-40 East from Exit 212 (I-73/I-840) to Exit 227 (I-85/I-785/I-840) tomorrow at 9pm. I didn't catch how long it will be (a day or for a weekend?). US 29 North will also close from US 220 South to I-40. The purpose of the closure is for resurfacing the road and the removal of Business 85 and US 70 signs.

The detour route is of course, take the Urban Loop (either I-73 South/I-85 North Southern Loop or I-840 East /I-785 South Northern Loop).

I saw the information from VMS overhead when driving back to Greensboro on I-85 and US 29. For some reason I cannot find the news release on NCDOT page (includes Twitter) with the exception of I-40 West closure which was last month.

On the other news, I can confirm that US 70 relocation and Business I-85 removal is now under way. Noticed I-85 Business and US 70 shields are gone, leaving only US 29 in some places when I drove through there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 14, 2023, 01:56:38 PM
NCDOT press release about upcoming nightly closures of I-85 South at the NC 86 exit starting next week to allow for bridge repairs:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-06-14-nc-86-bridge-repairs-overnight-closures.aspx)

^^^
That is quite fortunate.  This detour is now beginning to adversely impact the volume of customers at both the Walmart and Home Depot at Hampton Pointe.  On the other hand, I'm getting spoiled not having to wait in line at either of those stores.

And from the Bridges Closed in Only One Direction thread:
well, the entire bridge has since been closed until further notice. In my opinion, they should tear it down and rebuild that entire interchange.

Indeed.  The bridge was closed to all traffic in anticipation of the nightly closures on I-85 [westbound] starting June 17.  That bridge work was expected to continue for several weeks.  Unfortunately (as I'm sure you witnessed), it rained all of that first week and it has rained off-and-on since.  I have seen evidence of construction activity, but it doesn't look like NCDOT had made much progress (as of Wednesday, June 28).  I previously reported that traffic volumes at the Walmart and Home Depot in Hampton Pointe was much lower then.  The same was true last week, but today Walmart crowds were back to normal and the parking lot at Home Depot was jam-packed.

Worse, is now NCDOT has posted VMS signage at Hampton Pointe indicating major road closures on NC-86 (presumably due to the development of the relocated Chrysler dealership and the new Aldi beside the Sheetz).  Most traffic leaving both Hampton Pointe and Sheetz use Old Number 10 to get back to Hillsborough rather than the posted detour via I-85 to use the double U-turn at Exit 170.

Yesterday (Thursday, July 13) was Day Zero for the "detours in both directions" at Hampton Pointe.  Turns out, the "major road closures" on NC-86 south of the Hampton Pointe development were for the installation of fiber optics along the right-of-way.  That contractor stayed out of the way as best as possible.  One northbound lane and one southbound lane were maintained between Hampton Pointe and Old Number 10.  Traffic was reduced to single lane just south of the North Carolina Rail Road underpass.  One northbound lane and one southbound lane were maintained south of the new Byrdsville Road down to the Piedmont Electric Co-op complex.  Everything seemed to work well, and traffic to/from Walmart and Home Depot seemed undeterred.

A big traffic issue may still occur.  The right lane from Hampton Pointe Boulevard onto NC-86 southbound was signed as Closed/Detour.  I'm sure that the intention is for right turn traffic to stay left of the porkchop and still turn right (from the through lane/rightmost left turn lane) at the traffic signal.  But if one should accidentally turn left and follow the "other" detour signs, you'll end up on I-85 [eastbound] destined for the U-turn at Exit 170.  To be honest, this is how most of the traffic is supposed to go (but I don't see anybody actually doing this).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 14, 2023, 05:44:34 PM
If you guys are driving to Greensboro on I-40 East tomorrow, be warned that NCDOT will close I-40 East from Exit 212 (I-73/I-840) to Exit 227 (I-85/I-785/I-840) tomorrow at 9pm. I didn't catch how long it will be (a day or for a weekend?). US 29 North will also close from US 220 South to I-40. The purpose of the closure is for resurfacing the road and the removal of Business 85 and US 70 signs.

The detour route is of course, take the Urban Loop (either I-73 South/I-85 North Southern Loop or I-840 East /I-785 South Northern Loop).

I saw the information from VMS overhead when driving back to Greensboro on I-85 and US 29. For some reason I cannot find the news release on NCDOT page (includes Twitter) with the exception of I-40 West closure which was last month.

On the other news, I can confirm that US 70 relocation and Business I-85 removal is now under way. Noticed I-85 Business and US 70 shields are gone, leaving only US 29 in some places when I drove through there.
Here is a photo Strider took along I-73 South showing the removed shields.  While they were up there how hard would it have been to move the I-85 shield and South to the right?
(https://malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg5str723b.jpg)

His other photos can be found at: https://malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg5.html#photos (https://malmeroads.net/i7374nc/i73seg5.html#photos)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 14, 2023, 07:16:20 PM
I really want to see what happens to the signage along Wendover Ave more than anything else.   (My photos from February begin here:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218355643722954&set=a.10218355707644552)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on July 14, 2023, 11:55:18 PM
I really want to see what happens to the signage along Wendover Ave more than anything else.   (My photos from February begin here:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218355643722954&set=a.10218355707644552)

You should request to the local division of NCDOT for replacement of those deteriorated overhead signs. It makes America look 3rd world.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on July 18, 2023, 11:33:49 AM
The next letting is on July 18, I suspect the new 12 month list and the August advertisement will be out then. The letting will include the design-build contract for constructing the rest of Toll NC 540 to the Knightdale Bypass/I-87.

Meanwhile, to keep everyone busy, the new 2023-2024 State Transportation Map has been released:
https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/travel-maps/maps/Pages/state-transportation-map.aspx)

A quick look shows the typical mix of new, wrong and out of date information. Examples: Both I-885 and I-587 are shown on the state map and appropriate inset maps, but both contain old exit numbers along those routes, or, for the Durham Freeway whose numbers were changed due to I-885. I-74 shields appear on both the US 74 Rockingham Bypass and Maxton Bypass. A 'Toll I-885' shield appears at the northerly end of Toll NC 885 at I-40 on the Raleigh inset map. The Greensboro inset has the NC 74 Winston-Salem Bypass ending at NC 66 (though, due to its dimensions, it looks complete to US 52 on the state map). US 70 is shown on its new route through Greensboro and Business 85 shields have been removed from both US 29 between I-85 and I-40 and along its original route between Lexington and Greensboro. The NC 540 roadway between Bypass NC 55 and I-87 is shown under construction on the state map as is the Hampstead Bypass but other projects such as the Rockingham Bypass for I-73/I-74, I-295 to connect to I-95 and the Havelock Bypass are not.
The August letting, though not officially advertised as of yet, has the plans available as of this morning. The new 12 month tentative letting list (August 2023-July 2024) has also been posted. Turns out the NC 540 project letting has been delayed. The part from Rock Quarry Road to I-87/US 64/264 will now be let next month. The part from I-40 to Rock Quarry Road will be let in October. The new 12 month list: https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/12%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(AUGUST%202023%20-%20JULY%202024).pdf (https://connect.ncdot.gov/letting/12%20Month%20Tentative%20Letting%20Library/12%20MONTH%20LET%20LIST%20(AUGUST%202023%20-%20JULY%202024).pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on July 18, 2023, 12:51:25 PM
I really want to see what happens to the signage along Wendover Ave more than anything else.   (My photos from February begin here:  https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10218355643722954&set=a.10218355707644552)

You should request to the local division of NCDOT for replacement of those deteriorated overhead signs. It makes America look 3rd world.

It will eventually be replaced as US 70 is now using Wendover through Greensboro.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 20, 2023, 07:45:35 PM
NCDOT reports that repairs to the NC 86 bridge over I-85 should be complete by next week, ending the detour up the off ramp and down the on ramp for southbound I-85 traffic.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-20-nc-86-bridge-repairs-update.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 20, 2023, 08:18:26 PM
NCDOT has $450K allocated to change signs in the Fayetteville area from” Fort Bragg”  to “Fort Liberty.”  Signs are on order and a contractor will be hired soon to complete the change by the end of the year.
https://abc11.com/ncdot-fort-bragg-road-boulevard-name-change/13503668/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on July 21, 2023, 08:35:52 AM
NCDOT is proposing renumbering a section of NC 42 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_42) to NC 36 in Johnston County. The article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article277460313.html) says it will avoid confusion when I-42 is established in the area. The 10-mile renumbered section will only be in Johnston County and everything east of it and west of it will remain NC 42, effectively creating a gap in the 222-mile route.

A public meeting is scheduled for July 25, but you can also leave comments here: https://publicinput.com/US70-NC42-Clayton
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on July 21, 2023, 10:58:57 AM
NCDOT is proposing renumbering a section of NC 42 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_42) to NC 36 in Johnston County. The article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article277460313.html) says it will avoid confusion when I-42 is established in the area. The 10-mile renumbered section will only be in Johnston County and everything east of it and west of it will remain NC 42, effectively creating a gap in the 222-mile route.

A public meeting is scheduled for July 25, but you can also leave comments here: https://publicinput.com/US70-NC42-Clayton

Reasoning has valid points for renumbering, but changing just those 9 miles is silly.  If the 911 argument is valid, wouldn't they have to renumber a larger chunk of it?  They don't even renumber all of Johnston County's portion of NC 42.  Couldn't they just find a few thousand '4' stickers and renumber the whole thing to NC 44?

The bigger news in that article is the fairly imminent signing of I-42.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on July 21, 2023, 11:42:44 AM
Even though I am traveling, I did make the following comment.

“I have no issues with the reroute around Clayton.

I do think that the redesignation of any 10 miles of NC 42 will not prevent much if any confusion.  I recommend extending NC 78 east to take care of NC 42 east of Sanford.  West of Sanford, I would recommend a NC x42 that is available.  I also would not be against multiple designations if practical to eliminate concurrencies.”
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2023, 11:58:43 AM
On the plus side, at least NCDOT will shift US-70 off of the Clayton Bypass, making the route solely I-42. A similar move was made when they designated I-587, shifting US-264 back to the old route.

I’d be curious to know if they will ever move US-64 back to its business route between I-440 and Wendell where I-87 is the main interstate routing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: plain on July 21, 2023, 12:23:57 PM
I’d be curious to know if they will ever move US-64 back to its business route between I-440 and Wendell where I-87 is the main interstate routing.

I'm pretty sure it will happen when more of I-87 is completed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 25, 2023, 03:17:46 PM
The I-95 rest areas in Johnston County are gonna be renovated.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-25-johnston-county-rest-areas.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-25-johnston-county-rest-areas.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on July 26, 2023, 04:21:00 PM
NCDOT reports that repairs to the NC 86 bridge over I-85 should be complete by next week, ending the detour up the off ramp and down the on ramp for southbound I-85 traffic.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-20-nc-86-bridge-repairs-update.aspx

Can confirm that the NC-86 over I-85 at Exit 165 is now fully open.  A friend whose brother works for NCDOT District 7 in Greensboro said that the project required a "large specialty machine that picks up the bridge and heat laminates something".  [I'm presuming he means that the machine lifts the stringers off of bearings; I haven't got any idea what gets laminated to what].  That machine was scheduled for nights during the week of June 17.  But it rained all that week, so the machine went on to its next scheduled project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 27, 2023, 10:48:24 AM
NCDOT is proposing renumbering a section of NC 42 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_42) to NC 36 in Johnston County. The article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article277460313.html) says it will avoid confusion when I-42 is established in the area. The 10-mile renumbered section will only be in Johnston County and everything east of it and west of it will remain NC 42, effectively creating a gap in the 222-mile route.

A public meeting is scheduled for July 25, but you can also leave comments here: https://publicinput.com/US70-NC42-Clayton

Reasoning has valid points for renumbering, but changing just those 9 miles is silly.  If the 911 argument is valid, wouldn't they have to renumber a larger chunk of it?  They don't even renumber all of Johnston County's portion of NC 42.  Couldn't they just find a few thousand '4' stickers and renumber the whole thing to NC 44?

The bigger news in that article is the fairly imminent signing of I-42.
NCDOT is proposing renumbering a section of NC 42 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_Highway_42) to NC 36 in Johnston County. The article (https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/article277460313.html) says it will avoid confusion when I-42 is established in the area. The 10-mile renumbered section will only be in Johnston County and everything east of it and west of it will remain NC 42, effectively creating a gap in the 222-mile route.

A public meeting is scheduled for July 25, but you can also leave comments here: https://publicinput.com/US70-NC42-Clayton

Reasoning has valid points for renumbering, but changing just those 9 miles is silly.  If the 911 argument is valid, wouldn't they have to renumber a larger chunk of it?  They don't even renumber all of Johnston County's portion of NC 42.  Couldn't they just find a few thousand '4' stickers and renumber the whole thing to NC 44?

The bigger news in that article is the fairly imminent signing of I-42.


I personally think they should extend the renumbering further east to Wilson. That would eliminate possible confusion on 95 with the future Interstate 42 not that far south.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 27, 2023, 07:00:21 PM
The Ocracoke passenger ferry will extend it's operating season through September 4.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-27-passenger-ferry-extension.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-27-passenger-ferry-extension.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on July 31, 2023, 09:35:33 AM
30-day public comment period for the upcoming 2026-2035 STIP begins tomorrow.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-28-ncdot-seeks-public-input-transportation-plan.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-28-ncdot-seeks-public-input-transportation-plan.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 02, 2023, 02:18:28 PM
The Ocracoke ferry will be out of service for several days.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-02-ncdot-passenger-ferry.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-02-ncdot-passenger-ferry.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 02, 2023, 07:58:18 PM
^^^^
Of course, the Ocracoke-Hatteras Ferry (NC-12) is still running and is free (whereas the Ocracoke Express passenger ferry cost $5 each way).  At one time, NCDOT Ferry Division did allow pedestrians to use the car ferries, but it's a long walk from the east end ferry terminal down to the town of Ocracoke.  The passenger ferry takes you straight into Silver Lake (lagoon) a drops you off walking distance to everything.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on August 03, 2023, 05:42:31 PM
The Pope Road bridge over I-95 in Harnett County is closed after being hit by an over height truck. The bridge has substandard clearance of 14 ft 6 in and has been hit before. A new bridge will be built as part of the ongoing reconstruction of I-95.
https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/illegally-over-height-vehicle-struck-damaged-bridge-over-i-95-in-harnett-county-ncdot-say/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 16, 2023, 06:10:17 PM
The Knotts Island ferry route schedule will be adjusted for the new school times.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-16-currituck-changes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-16-currituck-changes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on August 20, 2023, 08:03:55 PM
I believed we talked about NC and their alternate routes and I did raise a question about why ALT US 74 in Western NC is signed with a suffix despite between Laurinburg and Lumberton the same route alternate route is signed with a banner.

To me I think it should be consistent in each state and not have different districts do as they please.  I can see one state using a suffix over another state using a banner, but not the same state. Although the A suffix was the norm in NC up until the nineties when US 64 started to get ALT banners upon completion of what now is Future I-87, so Asheville could be a hold out from then, but wouldn’t sign replacements have some ALT US 74 shields.

Plus wasn’t ALT US 74 applied when the current US 74 freeway got completed and realigned and old 74 being 74A?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on August 21, 2023, 02:37:34 PM
^^^
I've wondered the same thing.  However, NCDOT is showing the advantage of bannered Alternate U.S. Routes when the new main route gets upgraded to Interstate status.  When the US-70 Super Two got upgraded to I-85 back in 1960, the (then) North Carolina Highway Commission had to take down all of the almost new US-70A between (then) Hillsboro' and Greensboro and replace them with US-70 shields (just like they were a few years before).

While it looks doubtful that Alt US-74 will ever return to US-74 (because of the parallel I-74 corridor), it now appears likely that US-70 and US-64 will return to their previous routings in many areas when the I-42 and I-87 signage gets installed.  I even wonder if Business US-64/Business US-264 between Raleigh and Zebulon will get their banners ripped off when I-87 is completely upgraded all the way between the Knightdale Bypass and I-95.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on August 21, 2023, 02:42:14 PM
^^^
I've wondered the same thing.  However, NCDOT is showing the advantage of bannered Alternate U.S. Routes when the new main route gets upgraded to Interstate status.  When the US-70 Super Two got upgraded to I-85 back in 1960, the (then) North Carolina Highway Commission had to take down all of the almost new US-70A between (then) Hillsboro' and Greensboro and replace them with US-70 shields (just like they were a few years before).

While it looks doubtful that Alt US-74 will ever return to US-74 (because of the parallel I-74 corridor), it now appears likely that US-70 and US-64 will return to their previous routings in many areas when the I-42 and I-87 signage gets installed.  I even wonder if Business US-64/Business US-264 between Raleigh and Zebulon will get their banners ripped off when I-87 is completely upgraded all the way between the Knightdale Bypass and I-95.

The Knightdale US 64 BUS is not concurrent with a US 264 BUS.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on August 21, 2023, 05:13:34 PM
^^^
I've wondered the same thing.  However, NCDOT is showing the advantage of bannered Alternate U.S. Routes when the new main route gets upgraded to Interstate status.  When the US-70 Super Two got upgraded to I-85 back in 1960, the (then) North Carolina Highway Commission had to take down all of the almost new US-70A between (then) Hillsboro' and Greensboro and replace them with US-70 shields (just like they were a few years before).

While it looks doubtful that Alt US-74 will ever return to US-74 (because of the parallel I-74 corridor), it now appears likely that US-70 and US-64 will return to their previous routings in many areas when the I-42 and I-87 signage gets installed.  I even wonder if Business US-64/Business US-264 between Raleigh and Zebulon will get their banners ripped off when I-87 is completely upgraded all the way between the Knightdale Bypass and I-95.


I could see US 74 returning back to its original route where US 74 ALT is now, leaving I-74 on the freeway (because signing both I-74/US 74 while you have US 74 ALT paralleling it is just silly, IMO). I highly doubt that will happen, but with NCDOT currently and SLOWLY moving US 70 out of I-85/US 29 to follow NC 68 and Wendover Ave through High Point and Greensboro, and US 264 is being put back to its original route replacing US 264 ALT between Saratoga and Greenville, I could see it happening with any other routes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on August 21, 2023, 05:59:57 PM
I believed we talked about NC and their alternate routes and I did raise a question about why ALT US 74 in Western NC is signed with a suffix despite between Laurinburg and Lumberton the same route alternate route is signed with a banner.

To me I think it should be consistent in each state and not have different districts do as they please.  I can see one state using a suffix over another state using a banner, but not the same state. Although the A suffix was the norm in NC up until the nineties when US 64 started to get ALT banners upon completion of what now is Future I-87, so Asheville could be a hold out from then, but wouldn’t sign replacements have some ALT US 74 shields.

Plus wasn’t ALT US 74 applied when the current US 74 freeway got completed and realigned and old 74 being 74A?

It is signed as ALT US 74 where it exits US 74 (https://goo.gl/maps/UkaXFDNK3E9BLqeu8) at Forest City, but from there to Asheville everything is signed as 74A or 74-A.

The signing plans (https://xfer.services.ncdot.gov/dsplan/2021%20Highway%20Letting/12-21-21/Plans%20and%20Proposals/RUTHERFORD_34400.3.4_R-2233BB_C204397/Standard%20PDF%20Files/250%20Signing.pdf) for the US 221 bypass of Rutherfordton keeps it as US 74A.

I would not be surprised if 74A is eliminated between Asheville and Forest City and becomes OG 74 if and when 74 receives an interstate designation from I-26 to I-85. Would that require a US 74 Truck designation on I-26/future interstate between Asheville and Forest City? Does that improve anything or just complicate things for no good reason?

Speaking of 74 and truck routes, I haven't been able to figure out this isolated US 74 Truck (https://goo.gl/maps/H2E96ksGGM28QFav7) sign on I-26 just east of I-40 and Brevard Rd. I think it's a typo and supposed to be US 64 Truck (https://goo.gl/maps/vsFU5FH2oi6BmRzHA).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on August 21, 2023, 11:45:49 PM
Also in Asheville on I-240 WB and US 19/23/74A where they split for I-240 to head south at Patton Ave, the US 74 A shield is not present along with US 19 & 23 for Patton Avenue.  Wondering if US 74A is on its way out as it’s redundant to have it follow closely its parent Route while concurrent with two other mainline US designations.
 https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on August 22, 2023, 01:27:13 AM
Also in Asheville on I-240 WB and US 19/23/74A where they split for I-240 to head south at Patton Ave, the US 74 A shield is not present along with US 19 & 23 for Patton Avenue.  Wondering if US 74A is on its way out as it’s redundant to have it follow closely its parent Route while concurrent with two other mainline US designations.
 https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.
It seems that US 74A is sporadically signed west of I-240 Exit 5B (where US 74A and US 70 join I-240 WB).  Using Google Maps, I did see one EAST US 74A sign east of the Haywood/Patton intersection, however, I did not see one just north of I-40 Exit 44 (only has a NORTH US 19/23 sign) nor did I see a US 74A sign with US 19/23 on Patton west of the I-240 split.  Maybe US 74A should be truncated at the US 70/Tunnel Road intersection or at the I-40/240 interchange.

I do not see NC changing US 74A back to US 74.  US 74A is sort of the scenic or leisurely route between Asheville and Forest City.  US 74 has been designed as the quicker routing between Asheville and Charlotte as well as between Charlotte to Wilmington. 

US 74A was US 74 until the 1994 reroute of US 74 along the completed freeway from Forest City to I-26 and along I-26 to Exit 44 on I-40 (with the later 1998 reroute of US 74 along its current route along I-40 and the Exit 27 connector).  It would not be financially feasible to change the US 74A routing back to US 74—just leave the routings as they currently are.  US 74 in NC has become one of the more important highways in the state. It is no longer the single state US highway it once was.

As an aside, and not dealing with NC, with the 1987 extension of US 74 to Chattanooga, TN, TN should sign US 74 prominently from the NC/TN line to I-75 Exit 20, utilizing the US 64 Bypass around Cleveland, TN.  That is where US 74 should have its national western terminus–not at the I-75/I-24 interchange.  That is very pointless to have an unsigned concurrency for 18 miles, much less hardly sign US 74 in TN.  If the Chattanooga-Asheville corridor wants to be promoted, have improved signage of US 74 in TN.  If the extension was approved, show it. 

(Steps away from the podium)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: amroad17 on August 22, 2023, 01:31:20 AM
^Just noticed something about the above post.  It was my 1717th post. 

Just an observation.  :D
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 22, 2023, 08:00:15 AM
I have become a regular driver on 74A between Rutherfordton and Lake Lure.  You DO NOT even want to have semis thinking that's an OK route to travel
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on August 22, 2023, 01:54:20 PM
I have become a regular driver on 74A between Rutherfordton and Lake Lure.  You DO NOT even want to have semis thinking that's an OK route to travel
Oh my word, I was just there a couple of weeks ago.  Very true.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on August 22, 2023, 02:48:53 PM
Also in Asheville on I-240 WB and US 19/23/74A where they split for I-240 to head south at Patton Ave, the US 74 A shield is not present along with US 19 & 23 for Patton Avenue.  Wondering if US 74A is on its way out as it’s redundant to have it follow closely its parent Route while concurrent with two other mainline US designations.
 https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg (https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/nc/240/i-240-w-exit-003-5.jpg)
Courtesy AA Roads.

US 74A has never been on the BGSs at this interchange from any direction back to at least 2008.  I don't recall if there were supplemental shields around this interchange when it was still US 74 prior to 1994.

US 74A was still posted west of this interchange as of March - https://goo.gl/maps/ZCjHajuCC9hEM8Zx8.  It is also posted in many places in downtown at I-240 interchanges.

Here is a 74A east shield at Exit 44 from July - https://goo.gl/maps/JAkzkJaWSrQF3J1E9; advance signage on US 19-23 west of Exit 44 from October - https://goo.gl/maps/3Ywy9hnmmb5HimW99

If US 74 from I-26 to I-85 becomes an interstate, they should consider decommissioning US 74.  They could then replace 74 from Hendersonville to Tennessee with US 64 (It's already US 64 TRUCK).  74A west of Bat Cave could become an extended NC 63.  US 64 from Franklin to Hendersonville could become US 176 or just NC 28 and NC 106.  US 178 would need to be extended somewhere.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 03:18:21 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/yWiCjm4uTXPZQeor5
They at least have a US 74 ALT shield in the gore of the WB I-240 split on the other side.

What irks me is that it still acknowledges that I-26 starts at the end of I-240 WB to begin its overall journey. Although I-26 west of Asheville still needs upgrades on US 19/23 to be interstate, it should get a future I-26 shield going EB on I-240 and the “TO”  on I-240 WB should be “ EAST”  as that part is interstate quality for I-240 and to show that once in Tennessee you can go eventually West on I-26 as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on August 29, 2023, 03:05:48 PM
Expected impacts to ferry schedules due to Idalia.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-29-ferry-idalia-impacts.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-08-29-ferry-idalia-impacts.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on September 02, 2023, 07:56:30 AM
The Ocracoke passenger ferry will extend it's operating season through September 4.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-27-passenger-ferry-extension.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-07-27-passenger-ferry-extension.aspx)

The midweek schedule has been extended through Sept. 28.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-01-Ocracoke-Express-September-Extension.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-09-01-Ocracoke-Express-September-Extension.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 04, 2023, 09:48:49 PM
Hillsborough Road at Blue Ridge Road will reopen this week, in time for football games and the State Fair.
https://www.wral.com/story/hillsborough-street-at-blue-ridge-road-to-reopen-after-months-long-construction-project-in-raleigh/21032660/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 12, 2023, 11:48:19 AM
Spotted on the AASHTO 2023 Spring Meeting thread, posted application results which include for NC (no interstates this time!) the relocation of US 15/501 around Pittsboro, partly on the US 64 Bypass. Link to all applications, Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/01c3c1d9wcymnneicavm9/Final-Report-USRN-May-2023-UPDATED-6-9-23-002.pdf?rlkey=fjmtfya01ail7ahuj2m551r69&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/01c3c1d9wcymnneicavm9/Final-Report-USRN-May-2023-UPDATED-6-9-23-002.pdf?rlkey=fjmtfya01ail7ahuj2m551r69&dl=0)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2023, 12:00:40 PM
I am honestly a bit sad that US 15/US 501 will be rerouted away from the Pittsboro Town Hall roundabout at US 64 BUS.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Evan_Th on September 12, 2023, 01:59:52 PM
I am honestly a bit sad that US 15/US 501 will be rerouted away from the Pittsboro Town Hall roundabout at US 64 BUS.

I'm sorry too.  I remember being in the back seat as a kid as we drove through that roundabout.  Ah, the memories.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 22, 2023, 10:36:22 PM
Included in the state budget that was passed today:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53206935398_151ca41a0e_o.jpg) (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H259v6.pdf)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on September 23, 2023, 07:40:38 AM
Makes you wonder if Interstate designations that are destined to just be intrastate have measurable economic benefit.

90% reimburseable, though.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on September 23, 2023, 09:06:46 AM
Makes you wonder if Interstate designations that are destined to just be intrastate have measurable economic benefit.

90% reimburseable, though.
US-74 between I-26 and I-85 is a major corridor that certainly warrants a full freeway - it is mostly complete, with the last pieces of the Shelby bypass either under construction or going under construction. Work will need to happen to upgrade some of the older freeway sections to modern standards by widening shoulders and replacing various bridges, which should happen regardless of interstate designation, IMO.

US-29 is a major north-south route between Greensboro and Washington. D.C. that arguably should be a freeway for its entire length. This specific section, Greensboro to Danville, is already mostly interstate-standard freeway, there is a roughly 6-7 mile gap just north of Greensboro that is still four lane divided highway with at-grade intersections. Perfectly reasonable to close those intersections.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: fillup420 on September 23, 2023, 02:51:05 PM
90% reimburseable, though.

Thats the goal there. I'm convinced its the reason I-40 was moved back to the original routing through Greensboro. NCDOT realized they would lose the federal funding for that stretch since it would no longer be an interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 23, 2023, 05:23:23 PM
Included in the state budget that was passed today:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53206935398_151ca41a0e_o.jpg) (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H259v6.pdf)
The US 29 corridor was approved long ago (1997) as future I-785. The US 74 corridor is probably the Forum’s favorite choice for the next NC interstate.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on September 23, 2023, 05:50:42 PM
Included in the state budget that was passed today:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53206935398_151ca41a0e_o.jpg) (https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H259v6.pdf)
The US 29 corridor was approved long ago (1997) as future I-785. The US 74 corridor is probably the Forum’s favorite choice for the next NC interstate.
Apparently taking now more than 25 years to complete I-785 is not fast enough for some people...

NCDOT doesn't seem to be in a hurry. The Draft 2024-2033 STIP had ROW purchasing for the US 29 upgrade between Greensboro and Reidsville starting in 2028 and construction in 2031. The final document, however, split the project up into 2 parts. Now only the section from the Loop to NC 150 at Browns Summit is funded and to start construction in 2031, the remainder is funded for preliminary engineering only with start date unknown.

Interesting to note that whoever wrote the legislation doesn't know that US 29 is up to interstate standards from Reidsville to the Virginia line and that work is needed on US 29 in Guilford County as well.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on September 23, 2023, 08:50:41 PM
The legislation may encourage NCDOT to rethink its schedule. It would be interesting to know which legislator(s) put this section into the document,
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on September 23, 2023, 08:55:26 PM
The legislation may encourage NCDOT to rethink its schedule. It would be interesting to know which legislator(s) put this section into the document,

I don't think it's a coincidence that those two corridors go through the home counties of the Speaker of the House (Moore, Cleveland) and President pro tempore of the Senate (Berger, Rockingham).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rickmastfan67 on September 25, 2023, 01:29:22 PM
https://www.jayski.com/2023/09/25/north-wilkesboro-to-retain-2024-all-star-race/
https://www.journalpatriot.com/news/new-state-budget-has-42m-for-wilkes/article_94cf3905-e717-5381-be58-401b83a96394.html

Quote
- $3 million for a pedestrian bridge over U.S. 421 for events at North Wilkesboro Speedway. Elmore said efforts were made for a cloverleaf interchange for U.S. 421 and Fishing Creek Road, but this was deferred to the transportation improvement planning process

A possible 'cloverleaf' interchange for US-421 @ Fishing Creek Road..... Yikes.

I know, an interchange there would be great to keep North Wilkesboro Speedway alive after they just revived it, but I don't think a cloverleaf is the best option UNLESS they plan on adding C/D lanes to US-421.  Weaving there would be a complete nightmare on race weekends without C/D lanes.  Maybe a DDI would be a better option.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 01, 2023, 11:12:15 AM
Raleigh's Peace Street Bridge and Durham's Can Opener Bridge (located at South Gregson at West Peabody) are both low-clearance Norfolk Southern railroad overpasses that for decades have taken out numerous unsuspecting tractor-trailers.  Each bridge resides near their respective city's downtowns - Durham's Brightleaf District and Raleigh's Glenwood South.  Over the years, the two bridges have generated media attention and a social media following.

I take a look at both bridges and declare a winner:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/a-tale-of-two-cities-and-two-bridges.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 01, 2023, 06:57:58 PM
Raleigh's Peace Street Bridge and Durham's Can Opener Bridge (located at South Gregson at West Peabody) are both low-clearance Norfolk Southern railroad overpasses that for decades have taken out numerous unsuspecting tractor-trailers.  Each bridge resides near their respective city's downtowns - Durham's Brightleaf District and Raleigh's Glenwood South.  Over the years, the two bridges have generated media attention and a social media following.

I take a look at both bridges and declare a winner:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/a-tale-of-two-cities-and-two-bridges.html
Nothing will stop all these truck embarrassments but I suggest big red signs saying FAMOUS TRUCK-EATING BRIDGE on the bridges
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: epzik8 on October 02, 2023, 04:35:15 PM
Drove through today going to the Myrtle Beach area, and I like the 587/795/264 shield assemblies in the Wilson area, but there is a glaring problem in that what is now exit 23 (795 split) is still marked as exit 43 on most BGS.

I did clinch I-140 today. The last time I passed through the Wilmington area, in mid-2017, 140 was still under construction west of 421.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on October 02, 2023, 04:47:56 PM
^Not at the moment, US 74A is pretty well signed east of Downtown Asheville.  Though with a potential I-26 to I-85 interstate coming, it is very possible to see US 74 back on US 74A.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 02, 2023, 07:11:52 PM
I highly doubt US 74 Alternate will revert back to mainline US 74. US 74 Alternate may eventually be decommissioned, just like the following US 74 Alternates were decommissioned in the following locations: Rutherfordton (1949-1960); Shelby (1936-1960); Bessemer City (1937-1938); the two in Monroe (1949-1952) and (1952-1954); Rockingham (1953-1957); Leland (1936-1975); and the one in Wrightsville Beach (1938-1940). Of course, I could be wrong about my prediction, and I will be the first to acknowledge my mistake if I am.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2023, 08:19:04 AM
^Not at the moment, US 74A is pretty well signed east of Downtown Asheville.  Though with a potential I-26 to I-85 interstate coming, it is very possible to see US 74 back on US 74A.

No - US 74A would need to see various upgrades to be a serviceable mainline US highway (even with low volumes.). It would be a disservice if it reverted back to US 74.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on October 03, 2023, 09:09:55 AM
^Not at the moment, US 74A is pretty well signed east of Downtown Asheville.  Though with a potential I-26 to I-85 interstate coming, it is very possible to see US 74 back on US 74A.

No - US 74A would need to see various upgrades to be a serviceable mainline US highway (even with low volumes.). It would be a disservice if it reverted back to US 74.

US 74A is not actually bad, haven driven it; its just a mountain highway that is not unique to others in the area. The whole point of alternate routes was not to devalue the route but identify it as an valid alternative to the mainline. Could I see NCDOT requesting the mainline back onto the alternate route, yes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 03, 2023, 09:36:24 AM
Disagree in that roadway condition and narrowness at various points. Barely Good as alternate - 74 would be better as routed and be consistent with much of the highway corridor throughout the state. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 03, 2023, 11:10:14 AM
As I have posted before:  Yo do NOT want to do anything to encourage trucks through Lake Lure.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Rothman on October 03, 2023, 11:15:21 AM
As I have posted before:  Yo do NOT want to do anything to encourage trucks through Lake Lure.
^So much this.  The stretches around Chimney Rock/Lake Lure would be horrible if semis decided to take that route.  Turning radii are tight and the trailer would probably cut the curves with the quality of drivers we're seeing (although, I'm reminded of the Ben Franklin freight semi that would make its way up KY 122...back when truckers knew what they were doing...).  They'd also inch along slower than the old fogies that inch along the stretch now.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 03, 2023, 12:30:57 PM
Joey Hopkins just became the new NCDOT secretary.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-10-03-hopkins-peoples-sylvester-ncdot-leadership.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-10-03-hopkins-peoples-sylvester-ncdot-leadership.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on October 06, 2023, 06:39:22 PM
NCDOT is opening two ramps at the big interchange of I-440 and Wade Avenue in West Raleigh: the flyover from I-440 EB to Wade WB and the left-hand exit from Wade EB to I-440 EB.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-10-06-wade-ramp-exit-hillsborough-fair.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 13, 2023, 12:50:58 PM
Raleigh's Peace Street Bridge and Durham's Can Opener Bridge (located at South Gregson at West Peabody) are both low-clearance Norfolk Southern railroad overpasses that for decades have taken out numerous unsuspecting tractor-trailers.  Each bridge resides near their respective city's downtowns - Durham's Brightleaf District and Raleigh's Glenwood South.  Over the years, the two bridges have generated media attention and a social media following.

I take a look at both bridges and declare a winner:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/a-tale-of-two-cities-and-two-bridges.html

Sorry for the late response.  The Peace Street canopener is actually beneath the CSX Norlina Subdivision, which was formerly the Seaboard Air Line mainline between Richmond and Savannah (via Raleigh and Columbia).  This rail line is also part of the proposed Southeast High Speed Rail corridor. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on October 13, 2023, 09:10:17 PM
Raleigh's Peace Street Bridge and Durham's Can Opener Bridge (located at South Gregson at West Peabody) are both low-clearance Norfolk Southern railroad overpasses that for decades have taken out numerous unsuspecting tractor-trailers.  Each bridge resides near their respective city's downtowns - Durham's Brightleaf District and Raleigh's Glenwood South.  Over the years, the two bridges have generated media attention and a social media following.

I take a look at both bridges and declare a winner:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/10/a-tale-of-two-cities-and-two-bridges.html

Sorry for the late response.  The Peace Street canopener is actually beneath the CSX Norlina Subdivision, which was formerly the Seaboard Air Line mainline between Richmond and Savannah (via Raleigh and Columbia).  This rail line is also part of the proposed Southeast High Speed Rail corridor.

It's Norfolk Southern. CSX is to the east of Capital Blvd. at 13' 6".
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on October 13, 2023, 09:25:00 PM
The CSX old Seaboard line runs to the east of Capital Blvd. The NS line runs to the west.  The peace street bridge is west of capital.  The old Seaboard Station is/was also east of Capital.

I didn’t use this photo but the link has a photo of the original peace st bridge with NS on it.

https://www.facebook.com/1014456745313277/posts/pfbid033KTHhXEdo8AMF4U7vD8d2kuqpDV1UWUDQ9d2kD9jrrBAYcFDChKi7k5gEtQbiN5Nl/?mibextid=cr9u03

Also a few news stories confirm it’s NS:

https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-news/wake-county-news/raleighs-peace-street-bridge-peels-open-another-truck/amp/

The CSX bridge has a clearance of 13’6” vs 12’4” for the NS bridge.

With both so close together, it’s easy to mix up - WRAL’s article gets the bridge right but use the dates from the CSX/Seaboard bridge.

Both sets of tracks were the boundary of the old Smoky Hollow neighborhood in Raleigh

https://theraleighcommons.org/linkpeacestreet/history.php
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on October 14, 2023, 08:33:46 PM
^^^
Oops.  Since I've personally seen six canopener events on the eastern Peace Street overpass beneath the old Seaboard main line, I've always assumed (wrongly) that this was the one.  Additionally, I more recently (5 years ago?) saw a near-miss where a big rig was backing up from the eastern Peace Street overpass and trying to get back onto Capital Boulevard.  Somehow, I got around him.

Cross-posted from the Overpasses with RR Logos thread:  There's another canopener in Downtown Durham worth mentioning:  https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33994.msg2876223#msg2876223
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: rover on October 20, 2023, 11:48:52 PM
I really hope they stop I-87 and come up with another number.
I hate it when interstates are used twice, especially on the same coast.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2023, 05:25:55 PM
Too late for that. The Interstate 87 designation is here to stay. At least North Carolina’s Interstate 587 will make more sense than New York’s 587 IMHO.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: hurricanehink on October 21, 2023, 09:45:30 PM
I really hope they stop I-87 and come up with another number.
I hate it when interstates are used twice, especially on the same coast.

Or we can connect them via Delmarva and the Garden State Parkway 😜
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on October 23, 2023, 04:53:40 PM
Upcoming closures as part of the I-440 & Blue Ridge Road improvements project in Raleigh.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-10-23-beryl-road-wade-avenue-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-10-23-beryl-road-wade-avenue-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on November 13, 2023, 11:53:30 AM
NCDOT is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the opening of the Monroe Expressway:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-11-13-monroe-expressway-five-years.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-11-13-monroe-expressway-five-years.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 13, 2023, 01:25:19 PM
Now if they could get bypasses of Marshville, Peachland, Polkton and Wadesboro constructed, then they'd really be in business.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on November 13, 2023, 08:46:04 PM
NCDOT is celebrating the 5th anniversary of the opening of the Monroe Expressway:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-11-13-monroe-expressway-five-years.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-11-13-monroe-expressway-five-years.aspx)

Moodys just upgraded its bond rating citing NC continued growth and support from the state.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on November 19, 2023, 09:38:47 PM
Question about U 70 from Powhatan to Selma. Before US 70 got realigned to bypass Smithfield, I do remember that US 70 Alternate followed current US 70 through Selma and continued west to Powhatan where is western terminus was with its parent.

However it wasn’t a freeway west of Selma then. Plus Google doesn’t show any parallel alignment to US 70 between the two places that could have been US 70 ALT prior to the freeway. Am I to assume that the current freeway was built on top of the former US 70 Alternate alignment?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: MASTERNC on November 20, 2023, 03:22:13 PM
Looks like the I-77/I-40 interchange is mostly done.  It is confusing with all the cones closing lanes and shifting people around, but it should be nice when opened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Dirt Roads on November 20, 2023, 06:49:03 PM
Question about U 70 from Powhatan to Selma. Before US 70 got realigned to bypass Smithfield, I do remember that US 70 Alternate followed current US 70 through Selma and continued west to Powhatan where is western terminus was with its parent.

However it wasn’t a freeway west of Selma then. Plus Google doesn’t show any parallel alignment to US 70 between the two places that could have been US 70 ALT prior to the freeway. Am I to assume that the current freeway was built on top of the former US 70 Alternate alignment?

Indeed.  Much of the current alignment of US-70 between Selma and the US-70 Clayton Bypass was originally US-70A and then switched to US-70 mainline about 1992.  At that time, the original routing of US-70 through Smithfield got bannered to become Business US-70.  It was later four-laned around Wilsons Mills about 1998.  Technically, very little of this portion of US-70 is yet up to NCDOT freeway standards, much less Interstate standards.  But it won't be long, as construction is progressing quickly (one of the few expeditious NCDOT construction projects in recent memory - ughh).

The infamous Oak Street intersection west of Selma was recently converted to a pseudo-RIRO to extend the western tailings of the Bypass US-70 freeway.  The original routing of US-70A through Selma proper still exists as Noble Street (SR-1900) and an abandoned portion of the original route continues northwest from Buffalo Road up to West Oak Street parallel to the North Carolina Rail Road.  Some of it is being used as railroad maintenance access.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on November 20, 2023, 06:59:57 PM
US 70A also used Sadisco Rd south of the Clayton Bypass interchange
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 08:52:00 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ph3vNMXj1bHjvUwC6
I see work is going on at SR 1913. So obviously the route is not yet full freeway.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/N3Eh9A4KuuuV3vRM6
Here is a service road built longside US 70. I’m assuming it’s purpose is to serve local access that former US 70 A once served.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Selma,+NC/@35.546067,-78.3078295,1110m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x89ac12ad585e219d:0x9ad60833b4d51780!8m2!3d35.5365485!4d-78.2844435!16zL20vMHloZ2M?entry=ttu
Oh yes I see how Noble Street once defaulted into today’s expressway at Buffalo Road.

However the current Exit 97 on I-95 always intersected US 70 ALT even before Bypass US 70 was built and even as a kid remember staying at the Ho Jo there as that interchange was far less developed. It even had a Stuckeys where the former JR Outlets were with the NB 97 ramp directed onto the I-95 frontage road instead of ending at the current signalized intersection and the frontage road having its own intersection with US 70 ( former US 70A).

The Noble street interchange was, if I recall, a partial interchange instead of a full one as it is today. It was signed Selma and the Exit 97 guides were US 70 A Pine Level and Selma for the direction of I-95 that lacked a ramp to Noble Street.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/MZu8mEdg5hpAc71y8
The side road here shows how US 70A tied into the current parclo ( former diamond) with I-95.

So no doubt US 70 Alternate had been moved at the time I-95 was constructed in the late fifties or early sixties.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on November 21, 2023, 09:41:49 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YFYp1tpueNDwzihg6
I see work is slow but sure at the I-95/ NC 4 interchange to remove the trumpet and replace it with a dogbone exchange with the realigning of Halifax Road.

Ditto to the south where Sunset Road is to have its future interchange with I-95 as it’s been quite a while workers have been building that exchange as well. Latest GSV shows the old and the new Sunset Avenue overpasses together as the former isn’t wide enough underneath to handle a c/d roadway that this new interchange will have.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: VTGoose on November 22, 2023, 12:52:39 PM
Looks like the I-77/I-40 interchange is mostly done.  It is confusing with all the cones closing lanes and shifting people around, but it should be nice when opened.

We have traveled through there multiple times while construction has been going on and it will hopefully be nice when done. The lane shifts and bad pavement have been challenging. It's difficult to tell what lanes will go where, although adding more lanes on I-77 through Statesville is A Good Thing.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 05, 2023, 10:41:56 AM
The AASHTO 2023 Annual Meeting Minutes have been posted online and here are North Carolina's requests:

Quote
Item 17: North Carolina, US 1
Action: Deletion of route Vote: Approve
Description: US 1 in Franklin County, Southwest of Franklinton, going north along
US 1 Alternate through the town of Franklinton. The route is traveling on a two-
lane, undivided facility with a portion of the route traveling through the central
business district of Franklinton, where on-street parking exists. The route is
approximately 2.7 miles in length and ends at US 1 in Franklin County, north of
Franklinton.

Say goodbye to US 1A through Franklinton.

Quote
Item 18: North Carolina, US 70
Action: Relocation of route
Description: US 70 is proposed to be relocated due to approval of I-42 along an
existing portion of US 70 between I-40 and US70 Business. The route is going
along existing US 70 Business in Wake and Johnston Counties. The route is
traveling along a multi-lane, divided facility going through the municipalities of
Garner and Clayton. The route will cover approximately 11.88 miles, and will end
at US 70/US 70 Business interchange.

US 70 is moving back on part of its former route for I-42.

Quote
Item 19: North Carolina, US 70B
Action: Deletion of route Vote: Approve
Description: US 70 Business is proposed to be eliminated as part of the relocation
of US 70. The route begins at I-40/US 70 interchange in Garner. The route is
traveling along a multi-lane, divided facility, going east through the municipalities
of Garner and Clayton. The route is approximately 11.88 miles, and ends at the US
70/US 70 Business interchange south of Clayton in Johnston County.

With US 70 moving back on its old alignment, there is no room for US 70 Business, at least between Garner and Clayton; Smithfield segment will remain.

Any surprises here or as expected?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 05, 2023, 11:45:46 AM
The AASHTO 2023 Annual Meeting Minutes have been posted online and here are North Carolina's requests:

Quote
Item 17: North Carolina, US 1
Action: Deletion of route Vote: Approve
Description: US 1 in Franklin County, Southwest of Franklinton, going north along
US 1 Alternate through the town of Franklinton. The route is traveling on a two-
lane, undivided facility with a portion of the route traveling through the central
business district of Franklinton, where on-street parking exists. The route is
approximately 2.7 miles in length and ends at US 1 in Franklin County, north of
Franklinton.

Say goodbye to US 1A through Franklinton.

Quote
Item 18: North Carolina, US 70
Action: Relocation of route
Description: US 70 is proposed to be relocated due to approval of I-42 along an
existing portion of US 70 between I-40 and US70 Business. The route is going
along existing US 70 Business in Wake and Johnston Counties. The route is
traveling along a multi-lane, divided facility going through the municipalities of
Garner and Clayton. The route will cover approximately 11.88 miles, and will end
at US 70/US 70 Business interchange.

US 70 is moving back on part of its former route for I-42.

Quote
Item 19: North Carolina, US 70B
Action: Deletion of route Vote: Approve
Description: US 70 Business is proposed to be eliminated as part of the relocation
of US 70. The route begins at I-40/US 70 interchange in Garner. The route is
traveling along a multi-lane, divided facility, going east through the municipalities
of Garner and Clayton. The route is approximately 11.88 miles, and ends at the US
70/US 70 Business interchange south of Clayton in Johnston County.

With US 70 moving back on its old alignment, there is no room for US 70 Business, at least between Garner and Clayton; Smithfield segment will remain.

Any surprises here or as expected?

As expected for US-70/US-70 Business.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bing101 on December 10, 2023, 07:41:19 PM
North Carolina DOT to rename an exit interchange after Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors.


https://abc7news.com/stephen-curry-freeway-interchange-north-carolina-exit-30/14163185/

https://www.davidson.edu/news/2023/12/07/take-exit-30-interchange-will-share-name-number-30-stephen-curry


Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on December 11, 2023, 01:58:46 PM
North Carolina DOT to rename an exit interchange after Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors.


https://abc7news.com/stephen-curry-freeway-interchange-north-carolina-exit-30/14163185/

https://www.davidson.edu/news/2023/12/07/take-exit-30-interchange-will-share-name-number-30-stephen-curry

I know South Carolina likes naming interchanges, but I do not recall seeing this in North Carolina (maybe I am just not paying attention).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 11, 2023, 02:02:35 PM
I would support this on one condition: that the Interstate 76/Interstate 77/OH 8 interchange in Akron, OH is named after Lebron James (Interstate 76 is Exit 23AB at this interchange). James is my favorite player, and I am still bitter that the Golden State Warriors beat my favorite team (the Cleveland Cavaliers) in the NBA Finals three years out of four (2015, 2017, 2018).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 13, 2023, 01:27:45 PM
NCDOT awarded a contract to repave a 5-mile stretch of I-140 near Leland between US-17 and US-74. Work will begin early next year, and completion is expected by summer 2025.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-13-i-140-repaving.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-13-i-140-repaving.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 14, 2023, 07:39:52 PM
Google Maps has recent views of construction of the interchange being built on US 421 (Future I-685) near Julian, southeast of Greensboro.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/egmB5njCUoor5VdZ9
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 14, 2023, 07:49:10 PM
Google Maps has recent views of construction of the interchange being built on US 421 (Future I-685) near Julian, southeast of Greensboro.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/egmB5njCUoor5VdZ9
For the Toyota Battery plant.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 20, 2023, 03:49:22 PM
Preservation work on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in Wilmington will begin in mid-January.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 23, 2023, 06:52:10 PM
I never noticed a lot of this exposed wire mesh on this railroad bridge over US Business Route 70 in Smithfield.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.507647,-78.33751,3a,75y,117.39h,107.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stm2C9Vb-uDvIw_NJUqiKYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.507647,-78.33751,3a,75y,117.39h,107.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stm2C9Vb-uDvIw_NJUqiKYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.507564,-78.3373106,3a,75y,112.14h,103.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svIimIHyj2woHEC9J4q1u4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.507564,-78.3373106,3a,75y,112.14h,103.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svIimIHyj2woHEC9J4q1u4g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&entry=ttu)

Remember what I said about the Ocean Parkway Bridge over the main walkway at Tobay Beach? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=1487.msg2720389#msg2720389)

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: D-Dey65 on December 25, 2023, 08:59:28 PM
Another tip. I'm starting to think that NCDOT should add a northbound collective-distributor road on I-85 between Exit 2 and the welcome center, once that section is widened.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 26, 2023, 08:16:07 PM
WRAL reports that authorities in Wake Forest and Franklinton, upset in funding and schedule delays for conversion of US 1 to a freeway, are open to making the project a toll road from I-540 to the Franklin County line.
https://www.wral.com/story/towns-push-for-a-study-into-a-toll-funding-option-for-u-s-1-upgrades/21211353/
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 27, 2023, 12:57:23 PM
Adding tolls might be the only way to get the US 1 corridor converted into freeway standards. After all, the state already has the Triangle Expressway (Interstate 885/NC 885), portions of the Wake Expressway (NC 540 only), and the Monroe Expressway (Bypass US 74) as existing toll roads. It was likely only a matter of time before more were added.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 27, 2023, 04:42:43 PM
Won't this require modifying legislation? What is the free alternate route? 401? Didn't they try this with I-95 and everyone hated the idea? The money eventually arrived for construction, a decade later.

Spoiler alert: We're going to start hearing about a lot more delayed projects due to the astronomical increases in construction and right-of-way costs. Total project cost estimates are starting to be counted in billions of dollars instead of millions.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on December 27, 2023, 05:22:28 PM
This is why toll roads are being proposed more. We may hate toll roads, however let's face it... it's going to happen somewhere eventually.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 29, 2023, 02:43:04 PM
Annual toll rate increase for the Triangle Expressway and Monroe Expressway.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-29-annual-toll-rate.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-29-annual-toll-rate.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on December 29, 2023, 06:16:02 PM
NCDOT has also posted a video touting its accomplishments in 2023. They mention the completion of the Greensboro Loop and the last Craven County contract to upgrade US 70 to I-42, but unfortunately can't mention any signing of I-42 which, hopefully, will occur next year, also the Military Cutoff Extension:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-29-accomplishments-cross-multiple-modes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-29-accomplishments-cross-multiple-modes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on December 29, 2023, 10:01:52 PM
I see no mention on Google anywhere about a future direct connection between I-95 and I-42. As of now both I-95 and US 70 Bypass ( the future I-42) will have the same configuration as I-70 and US 63 in Columbia, MO.

Yet somewhere on here somebody did mention that there is a proposal to build direct ramps despite the heavy development within Selma that leaves little right of way to add those ramps. However Texas DOT was able to build a complete interchange between IH 410 and US 281 near SA Airport among a heavily developed corridor using systems interchange flyovers between the IH 410 service roads and IH 410 which I can see fitting in between both I-95 and its frontage roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on December 30, 2023, 02:55:53 PM
^ It was mentioned either upthread or in the I-42 thread that NCDOT did a  feasibility study (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf) which included a conceptual alternative that relocates both I-95 and BYPASS US 70 to the south with a direct cloverleaf interchange centered approximately in the NW corner of the solar farm to the south of the existing overpass.  I-95 would be realigned from approximately Exit 95 (BUSINESS 70) to Exit 98 (Pine Level Selma Rd).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: PColumbus73 on December 30, 2023, 06:31:44 PM
I see no mention on Google anywhere about a future direct connection between I-95 and I-42. As of now both I-95 and US 70 Bypass ( the future I-42) will have the same configuration as I-70 and US 63 in Columbia, MO.

Yet somewhere on here somebody did mention that there is a proposal to build direct ramps despite the heavy development within Selma that leaves little right of way to add those ramps. However Texas DOT was able to build a complete interchange between IH 410 and US 281 near SA Airport among a heavily developed corridor using systems interchange flyovers between the IH 410 service roads and IH 410 which I can see fitting in between both I-95 and its frontage roads.

Personally, I wonder if the existing condition would actually be adequate in this case. Direct ramps on the eastern half to I-95 might be needed, but the western half to I-95 would already be covered by I-40 and I-587 (and more distantly I-87).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on December 30, 2023, 10:46:02 PM
Won't this require modifying legislation? What is the free alternate route? 401? Didn't they try this with I-95 and everyone hated the idea? The money eventually arrived for construction, a decade later.

Spoiler alert: We're going to start hearing about a lot more delayed projects due to the astronomical increases in construction and right-of-way costs. Total project cost estimates are starting to be counted in billions of dollars instead of millions.

None of this is about the state trying to take more of people's money.

US1 from Raleigh to Franklin County is a particular nightmare into and of itself. As the Triangle grows development just extends up US1 without regard for how awful the trek to and from Raleigh is. There are 14 intersections between Mini City and Youngsville and people drive painfully slow along this highway, many settling on 45mph though it's signed at 55mph.

At minimum, a 3rd lane in both directions is needed from Perry Creek Rd to Franklinton, and this is outside of any freeway conversion projects. Franklin County is the state's 5th fastest growing, with a population of 150,000 by 2040, just 16 years away.

The financial success and bottom lines for WF, Youngsville and Franklinton are all very much tied to how tolerable driving is on US1. I say tolls are fine if they can quickly make this thoroughfare less dreadful than it is today.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on December 31, 2023, 12:20:06 AM
^ It was mentioned either upthread or in the I-42 thread that NCDOT did a  feasibility study (https://connect.ncdot.gov/projects/planning/FeasibilityStudiesDocuments/Feasibility-Study_1604A_Report_2018.pdf) which included a conceptual alternative that relocates both I-95 and BYPASS US 70 to the south with a direct cloverleaf interchange centered approximately in the NW corner of the solar farm to the south of the existing overpass.  I-95 would be realigned from approximately Exit 95 (BUSINESS 70) to Exit 98 (Pine Level Selma Rd).

I think this pretty much kills the idea of realigning I-95...

https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing (https://adventuredev.com/eastfield-crossing)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: nerdom on December 31, 2023, 12:55:18 AM
Why? I thought the realignment was south of there.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: kendallhart808 on December 31, 2023, 11:21:28 AM
Won't this require modifying legislation? What is the free alternate route? 401? Didn't they try this with I-95 and everyone hated the idea? The money eventually arrived for construction, a decade later.

Spoiler alert: We're going to start hearing about a lot more delayed projects due to the astronomical increases in construction and right-of-way costs. Total project cost estimates are starting to be counted in billions of dollars instead of millions.

None of this is about the state trying to take more of people's money.

US1 from Raleigh to Franklin County is a particular nightmare into and of itself. As the Triangle grows development just extends up US1 without regard for how awful the trek to and from Raleigh is. There are 14 intersections between Mini City and Youngsville and people drive painfully slow along this highway, many settling on 45mph though it's signed at 55mph.

At minimum, a 3rd lane in both directions is needed from Perry Creek Rd to Franklinton, and this is outside of any freeway conversion projects. Franklin County is the state's 5th fastest growing, with a population of 150,000 by 2040, just 16 years away.

The financial success and bottom lines for WF, Youngsville and Franklinton are all very much tied to how tolerable driving is on US1. I say tolls are fine if they can quickly make this thoroughfare less dreadful than it is today.
I think express toll lanes would be tolerable, otherwise I can’t really imagine people being very happy about an US 1 (an existing road) being tolled. Franklin County residents would be worse off than Wake Forest residents, who can pretty easily default to both Falls of the Neuse Road and Ligon Mill/US 401 or Forestville. A bulk of Wake Forest has really easy access to those routes. Even Youngsville residents might opt to cut through wake forest downtown. I think they could toll US 1 but it’s going to come at the expense of Falls and Ligon Mill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: cowboy_wilhelm on December 31, 2023, 05:53:38 PM
The statute states that a currently free highway facility can be tolled if approved by the the MPO or RPO, which I didn't realize. Even if that does happen and goes through several years of new study and - if warranted and feasible - new design, it would probably be a pretty divisive decision to move forward with tolling after already being promised "free" upgrades. It would be different if it had been proposed from the start that U.S. 1 could only be upgraded within the next decade if tolled.

§ 136-89.187.  Conversion of free highways prohibited.
    The Authority Board is prohibited from converting any segment of the nontolled State Highway System to a toll facility, except for a segment of N.C. 540 under construction as of July 1, 2006, located in Wake County and extending from the N.C. 54 exit on N.C. 540 to the N.C. 55 exit on N.C. 540. No segment may be converted to a toll route pursuant to this section unless first approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Rural Planning Organization (RPO) of the area in which that segment is located.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 01, 2024, 11:24:08 PM
Won't this require modifying legislation? What is the free alternate route? 401? Didn't they try this with I-95 and everyone hated the idea? The money eventually arrived for construction, a decade later.

Look, let's use common sense here. Any tolling that would involve adding capacity which is the problem....

would almost certainly be a HOT lane addition to US1.

I just drove from Youngsville to DT Raleigh last night. It sucks even at off hours. The signals do change faster according to lighter traffic waiting at intersections, but a 3rd lane is desperately needed to Franklinton.

Any construction project would likely add one general purpose lane and maybe one HOT lane. All of this is outside the scope of any limited access conversion project which wouldn't extend to Franklin County.

I honestly believe the traffic woes are more of an issue North of I-540 into Franklin County than inside I-540. At least there you have 6 lanes and traffic moves at an expected pace.

It's those darn intersections up US1 that take forever to traverse with tons of traffic on all sides and people's contentment with slow-poking along.

Spoiler alert: We're going to start hearing about a lot more delayed projects due to the astronomical increases in construction and right-of-way costs. Total project cost estimates are starting to be counted in billions of dollars instead of millions.

None of this is about the state trying to take more of people's money.

US1 from Raleigh to Franklin County is a particular nightmare into and of itself. As the Triangle grows development just extends up US1 without regard for how awful the trek to and from Raleigh is. There are 14 intersections between Mini City and Youngsville and people drive painfully slow along this highway, many settling on 45mph though it's signed at 55mph.

At minimum, a 3rd lane in both directions is needed from Perry Creek Rd to Franklinton, and this is outside of any freeway conversion projects. Franklin County is the state's 5th fastest growing, with a population of 150,000 by 2040, just 16 years away.

The financial success and bottom lines for WF, Youngsville and Franklinton are all very much tied to how tolerable driving is on US1. I say tolls are fine if they can quickly make this thoroughfare less dreadful than it is today.
I think express toll lanes would be tolerable, otherwise I can’t really imagine people being very happy about an US 1 (an existing road) being tolled. Franklin County residents would be worse off than Wake Forest residents, who can pretty easily default to both Falls of the Neuse Road and Ligon Mill/US 401 or Forestville. A bulk of Wake Forest has really easy access to those routes. Even Youngsville residents might opt to cut through wake forest downtown. I think they could toll US 1 but it’s going to come at the expense of Falls and Ligon Mill.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Thing 342 on January 01, 2024, 11:59:34 PM
The US-1 corridor between 540 and Wake Forest seems like it would be just barely wide enough to support a tolled freeway with free frontage roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 02, 2024, 02:37:00 PM
Are continuous frontage roads likely if US 1 were upgraded to freeway/tollway standards? And heaven help us all if North Carolina decides to slap an Interstate designation to that portion of US 1 (by the way, I'm not religious).
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 02, 2024, 03:50:00 PM
Are continuous frontage roads likely if US 1 were upgraded to freeway/tollway standards?
I don’t believe they’re fully necessary if the road is upgraded to a freeway without tolls… however, if the freeway is given tolls, they may be a compromise to allow drivers a toll free option by simply using the existing surface level road, with a new toll freeway slapped in the middle - similar to how Texas has upgraded virtually all of their roads.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 02, 2024, 06:03:12 PM
Are continuous frontage roads likely if US 1 were upgraded to freeway/tollway standards?
I don’t believe they’re fully necessary if the road is upgraded to a freeway without tolls… however, if the freeway is given tolls, they may be a compromise to allow drivers a toll free option by simply using the existing surface level road, with a new toll freeway slapped in the middle - similar to how Texas has upgraded virtually all of their roads.
Here are maps for the southern section of the route scheduled currently to start construction in 2025.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/capital-boulevard-upgrade/Pages/november-2021-meeting-maps.aspx
They call for a freeway with frontage roads to serve existing development.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 03, 2024, 07:35:29 PM
In Fayetteville the eastbound bridge of Russell Street over Blounts Creek was damaged on Christmas Day by a fire caused by a ruptured natural gas pipeline. NCDOT closed the bridge and doesn’t know if the bridge can be repaired or must be replaced. The westbound bridge was not damaged.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-03-ncdot-closes-fayetteville-bridge.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 03, 2024, 08:52:29 PM
Feature on the Bunker Hill Covered Bridge near Hickory.

https://www.carolinaxroads.com/2024/01/bunker-hill-covered-bridge.html

It is one of only two original covered bridges still standing in the state and also the last known wooden example of a Haupt Truss.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 09, 2024, 11:37:55 AM
Preservation work on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in Wilmington will begin in mid-January.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx)

Overnight lane closures on the bridge will begin this week.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-09-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-overnight-lanes.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-09-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-overnight-lanes.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 09, 2024, 02:50:11 PM
Just seeing a post that I-40 is closed between Statesville and Claremont due to tornado touchdown.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 10, 2024, 08:41:41 PM
The storm also caused a slide closing US 64 in the Cullasaja Gorge near Franklin, Macon County. The road will be closed at least two weeks, but probably longer.
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-10-us-64-cullasaja-gorge-repairs.aspx
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 17, 2024, 03:25:23 PM
This is a video of I-85 North of Charlotte.

I think it's one of the nicest stretches of interstate in the entire country. 8 lanes, much of it concrete, and it's at least 70 miles in length.

It looks like you're in a large metropolitan area, but alas, it's just the continuous string of small towns and small to medium cities that is central NC.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/31337/53460824980_31edc11756_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ps9GHJ)IMG_0442 (https://flic.kr/p/2ps9GHJ) by Stephen Edwards (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151506681@N05/), on Flickr

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: sprjus4 on January 17, 2024, 04:13:58 PM
This is a video of I-85 North of Charlotte.

I think it's one of the nicest stretches of interstate in the entire country. 8 lanes, much of it concrete, and it's at least 70 miles in length.

It looks like you're in a large metropolitan area, but alas, it's just the continuous string of small towns and small to medium cities that is central NC.
North Carolina has done a great job with I-85 and it’s a pleasant highway to drive. Charlotte to Lexington was expanded to 8 lanes within the last 15 years, and the remainder up to Greensboro was built with 6 lanes with a wide, forested median back in the 1970s and 1980s. Greensboro was bypassed with a 6 to 8 lane rural freeway in the early 2000s, and you have 8 lanes all the way to Durham (well, the I-40 split).

You have a minimum of 6 lanes of interstate highway between Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte (once the I-40 widening is complete outside Chapel Hill), with a majority being 8 lanes.

Then there’s I-77 north of Charlotte, which is useless HO/T lanes while still only 2 general purpose lanes in each direction within the metropolitan area. I-77 should be a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes between Charlotte and Mooresville, and 6 general purpose lanes (if not 8) all the way to north of Statesville.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on January 17, 2024, 04:55:14 PM
40 should be 6 lanes from exit 96 to Statesville
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on January 17, 2024, 10:54:21 PM
This is a video of I-85 North of Charlotte.

I think it's one of the nicest stretches of interstate in the entire country. 8 lanes, much of it concrete, and it's at least 70 miles in length.

It looks like you're in a large metropolitan area, but alas, it's just the continuous string of small towns and small to medium cities that is central NC.
North Carolina has done a great job with I-85 and it’s a pleasant highway to drive. Charlotte to Lexington was expanded to 8 lanes within the last 15 years, and the remainder up to Greensboro was built with 6 lanes with a wide, forested median back in the 1970s and 1980s. Greensboro was bypassed with a 6 to 8 lane rural freeway in the early 2000s, and you have 8 lanes all the way to Durham (well, the I-40 split).

You have a minimum of 6 lanes of interstate highway between Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte (once the I-40 widening is complete outside Chapel Hill), with a majority being 8 lanes.

Then there’s I-77 north of Charlotte, which is useless HO/T lanes while still only 2 general purpose lanes in each direction within the metropolitan area. I-77 should be a minimum of 8 general purpose lanes between Charlotte and Mooresville, and 6 general purpose lanes (if not 8) all the way to north of Statesville.

Yes, well Charlotte did get the biggest I-85 with lighting, a huge I-485 with plenty of concrete pavement, etc. by far the biggest interstates in NC. I-77 to the SC line is the next biggest need, but in a state with a very dispersed population, funding must first be spread thinly statewide meaning the next billion dollar chunks of funding for Charlotte are 20 years away.

Raleigh's I-540 is not built as a huge outerloop like I-485, and 60% of the completed loop is tolled. US1 in Raleigh is a nightmare, and its funding has been delayed again until the next STIP.

Charlotte should be very content. I-77 South to SC will cost billions to rebuild. Remember with HOT lanes their purpose is only to offer a free-flowing 45MPH+ option. I agree though that a 3rd general purpose lane should have been part of the I-77 North project.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on January 20, 2024, 07:47:09 PM
For over a decade, gribblenation was home to All Things NC! Our look at the stories of the roads and places in the Tar Heel State.

After over 15 years since I last updated the index site - I've brought back the All Things NC! Index at Gribblenation.

All Things NC!  is Gribblenation's detailed look at the stories and histories behind North Carolina's nearly 78,000 miles of highways and byways.  Here, you can take a virtual drive of the Blue Ridge Parkway, learn how Interstate 40 made it to Wilmington, discover an old general store, or find out how that funny-named town you just drove past got its name.
https://www.gribblenation.org/p/north-carolina.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 25, 2024, 04:33:48 PM
Preservation work on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in Wilmington will begin in mid-January.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx)

The eastbound lanes of the bridge will be closed this Saturday night at 7pm (weather permitting). The closure is expected to last through March 31.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-brunswick-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-eastbound.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-brunswick-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-eastbound.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on January 26, 2024, 11:37:10 AM
Preservation work on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge in Wilmington will begin in mid-January.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2023/2023-12-20-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-preservation-update.aspx)

The eastbound lanes of the bridge will be closed this Saturday night at 7pm (weather permitting). The closure is expected to last through March 31.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-brunswick-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-eastbound.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-brunswick-cape-fear-memorial-bridge-eastbound.aspx)

Quote
At the City of Wilmington’s request, on Jan. 27 at 8 a.m., the N.C. Department of Transportation will place barricades on 3rd Street at the intersections with Queen, Church, Nun and Orange streets. These barricades will prohibit left turns for drivers on 3rd Street, and will redirect the side-street traffic into turning right onto 3rd Street. Drivers needing to make a left turn at one of these streets will need to go to the next traffic signal on 3rd Street.

This traffic change is anticipated to help minimize the congestion on 3rd Street. The intersections will remain in this pattern until the preservation project is complete.

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-3rd-street-closures.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-01-25-new-hanover-3rd-street-closures.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on February 01, 2024, 10:12:59 PM
In the AASHTO 2020 Autumn Meeting, they approved North Carolina's request to eliminate US 70 Business and US 258 Business through Kinston (link (https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2021/01/USRN-Applications_Fall-2020_Combined.pdf)).


Wait so it's just gonna be Vernon Ave. now with only NC 58 showing up when you turn on Queen St.?


July 2023 GMSV shows that US 70-258 Business are now deposted...
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 06, 2024, 08:36:43 PM
This YouTube video a YouTuber driving through Greensboro on I-85, US 29 and I-40 East. US 70 and Business I-85 shields were almost completely removed. There is only two Business I-85 and US 70 signs remain on the overhead in the first a few minutes of the video, but as he drove onto US 29, there is no Business I-85 and US 70 shields on the road.

Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 07, 2024, 03:14:55 PM
This YouTube video a YouTuber driving through Greensboro on I-85, US 29 and I-40 East. US 70 and Business I-85 shields were almost completely removed. There is only two Business I-85 and US 70 signs remain on the overhead in the first a few minutes of the video, but as he drove onto US 29, there is no Business I-85 and US 70 shields on the road.
Thanks for the link. Like how they removed the Bus. 85 and US 70 reassurance markers from US 29 North but left the detour US 29/70 temporary detour signs in place. A quick look around various traffic cameras shows a mix of progress in route signing south of Greensboro. For example at the Baker Rd interchange it shows the backs of what I assume are just US 29 trailblazers at the ramps, but at the Kivett Dr exit just to the north, the Business 85 and US 70 shields are still in place. I could not find any evidence of US 70 shields along its new route.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on February 11, 2024, 01:26:11 PM
For nearly half a century - the former junction of Interstate 40 and 85 in Greensboro was one of North Carolina's most notorious stretches of highway.  Whether it was from serious - at times deadly - accidents or sloggish traffic jams, Greensboro's 'Death Valley' was one of the most notorious stretches of highways within the Carolinas.

The nearly 2.5 mile stretch of highway dates to before the formal Interstate system and until the mid-1960s included substandard interchanges and even at-grade crossings.

An approximately $6 million overhaul from 1966-68 would bring the highway up (or closer to standards). However, it wasn't that long until the highway was over-capacity. 

The 1990s saw Interstates 40 and 85 widened to handle the increased traffic load and finally Death Valley would be bypassed when the Southern portion of the Greensboro Urban Loop opened in February 2004.

The Chaotic History of Greensboro's Death Valley @ Gribblenation.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2024/02/the-chaotic-history-of-greensboros.html
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 11, 2024, 11:26:33 PM
This YouTube video a YouTuber driving through Greensboro on I-85, US 29 and I-40 East. US 70 and Business I-85 shields were almost completely removed. There is only two Business I-85 and US 70 signs remain on the overhead in the first a few minutes of the video, but as he drove onto US 29, there is no Business I-85 and US 70 shields on the road.
Thanks for the link. Like how they removed the Bus. 85 and US 70 reassurance markers from US 29 North but left the detour US 29/70 temporary detour signs in place. A quick look around various traffic cameras shows a mix of progress in route signing south of Greensboro. For example at the Baker Rd interchange it shows the backs of what I assume are just US 29 trailblazers at the ramps, but at the Kivett Dr exit just to the north, the Business 85 and US 70 shields are still in place. I could not find any evidence of US 70 shields along its new route.


The signing project is going really slow. Hopefully I will see US-70 shields showing up on NC-68/Wendover Ave soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: architect77 on February 12, 2024, 12:56:08 PM
Speaking of signing, boy the quality of the fabrication of overhead signage in the Raleigh area is going way downhill.

I-40 Westbound at DT Raleigh has a South Saunders St. overhead where they reduced the size of the sign so much that the words barely fit on the sign. I've seen this trend of reducing the overall size of overheads across the state.

Also on I-40 Westbound at the newly reconstructed RDU airport exits, none of the new overheads consists of the former high-quality typesetting standards. I'm really disappointed in the watering down of the historical impeccable standards followed for overheads.

Why is "Raleigh" 2 sizes smaller than the rest of the letters on the other signs on I-40 at the I-540 North Exit?

On I-540 Eastbound at the US401 Louisburg exit, the "1" in the 401 is almost outside of the shield outline.

On New Bern Ave Westbound at I-440 the spacing of the words "New Bern Ave" and "DOWNTOWN" is horribly positioned.

And why isn't the faded overhead signage on I-440 and on the I-540 exit ramps being replaced?

That plus the excessive trash along EVERY highway is a huge black-eye for North Carolina.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 12:51:45 AM
I was noticing while posting pictures on my Flickr page, that Ward Blvd in Wilson is a circular route around the central business district of that particular city.  I'm guessing it was originally built as an arterial beltway that when the city could no longer contain itself inside the Ward Blvd loop, it eventually expanded so much that Ward Blvd developed the same situation as I-610 in Houston and is now just an inner loop.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: LM117 on February 15, 2024, 06:23:35 PM
"All NC Quick Pass transponders accepted for toll payments in E-ZPass states"

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-02-15-ncquickpass-accepted-ezpass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-02-15-ncquickpass-accepted-ezpass.aspx)
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: WashuOtaku on February 16, 2024, 02:16:19 PM
"All NC Quick Pass transponders accepted for toll payments in E-ZPass states"

https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-02-15-ncquickpass-accepted-ezpass.aspx (https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-02-15-ncquickpass-accepted-ezpass.aspx)

That is great news since you can now use the FREE version, minus the HOV option in Virginia/Maryland. It is about time E-ZPass got their systems modernized; this could usher an expansion of  interoperability with other states now that have yet to join, like Texas and Oklahoma.
Title: US 70 through Greensboro
Post by: ccurley100 on February 26, 2024, 07:20:55 AM
US 70 is being rerouted through Greensboro and High Point along Wendover Ave and NC 68 down to 29 in Thomasville.  NCDOT has been removing US 70 shields along its old routing, so I followed it westbound along its new routing Saturday afternoon (2-24-24) to see what kind of signing job as been done.  They haven't even bothered yet. They changed a right turn arrow to a straight arrow at Wendover and US 29, along with removing the 70 shield from the BGS's but other than that, there is nothing. 
Title: Re: US 70 through Greensboro
Post by: Strider on February 26, 2024, 10:59:45 AM
US 70 is being rerouted through Greensboro and High Point along Wendover Ave and NC 68 down to 29 in Thomasville.  NCDOT has been removing US 70 shields along its old routing, so I followed it westbound along its new routing Saturday afternoon (2-24-24) to see what kind of signing job as been done.  They haven't even bothered yet. They changed a right turn arrow to a straight arrow at Wendover and US 29, along with removing the 70 shield from the BGS's but other than that, there is nothing.


That is a good question. I just emailed the local NCDOT office and asked the question about the delay. Hopefully I will have news soon. Stay tuned.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on February 26, 2024, 11:52:37 AM
I was on I 74 Saturday.  All the bugs except for the first one you see on 74 east were changed.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 26, 2024, 11:56:27 AM
US 70 is being rerouted through Greensboro and High Point along Wendover Ave and NC 68 down to 29 in Thomasville.  NCDOT has been removing US 70 shields along its old routing, so I followed it westbound along its new routing Saturday afternoon (2-24-24) to see what kind of signing job as been done.  They haven't even bothered yet. They changed a right turn arrow to a straight arrow at Wendover and US 29, along with removing the 70 shield from the BGS's but other than that, there is nothing.

That is a good question. I just emailed the local NCDOT office and asked the question about the delay. Hopefully I will have news soon. Stay tuned.
That US 70 straight arrow sign on Wendover Ave. at US 29 has been there for at least 6 years, so it hasn't been changed either, see this Google Street View link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ws8rYKHZpawdqQEQ8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ws8rYKHZpawdqQEQ8)

Hopefully, there will be a response from NCDOT (that hopefully isn't 'What US 70 rerouting?') soon.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 27, 2024, 01:39:17 PM
US 70 is being rerouted through Greensboro and High Point along Wendover Ave and NC 68 down to 29 in Thomasville.  NCDOT has been removing US 70 shields along its old routing, so I followed it westbound along its new routing Saturday afternoon (2-24-24) to see what kind of signing job as been done.  They haven't even bothered yet. They changed a right turn arrow to a straight arrow at Wendover and US 29, along with removing the 70 shield from the BGS's but other than that, there is nothing.

That is a good question. I just emailed the local NCDOT office and asked the question about the delay. Hopefully I will have news soon. Stay tuned.
That US 70 straight arrow sign on Wendover Ave. at US 29 has been there for at least 6 years, so it hasn't been changed either, see this Google Street View link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ws8rYKHZpawdqQEQ8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/Ws8rYKHZpawdqQEQ8)

Hopefully, there will be a response from NCDOT (that hopefully isn't 'What US 70 rerouting?') soon.


Here is the news that we have been waiting for:

Heard back from the local NCDOT office. They told me that they’re still planning on rerouting US Highway 70 through Greensboro and High Point. There are two issues:

1. They have not set up the timeline yet.
2. They are still waiting on funding.

I’m assuming the funding ran out when they removed Business I-85 and US 70 shields around Greensboro.

So there is our answer for time being.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ccurley100 on February 28, 2024, 07:11:38 AM
One would think that they would wait until they had funding for the entire job instead of just half-arsing it for several years but I doubt anyone follows US 70 just to get through Greensboro and most people have a GPS anyway. 
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on February 28, 2024, 05:14:29 PM
One would think that they would wait until they had funding for the entire job instead of just half-arsing it for several years but I doubt anyone follows US 70 just to get through Greensboro and most people have a GPS anyway.

Unless one want to clinch US 70 or for the local traffic. That's why NCDOT's priorities are a little whack. But I digress. At least they responded and gave explanation.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: bob7374 on February 28, 2024, 10:04:02 PM
One would think that they would wait until they had funding for the entire job instead of just half-arsing it for several years but I doubt anyone follows US 70 just to get through Greensboro and most people have a GPS anyway.

Unless one want to clinch US 70 or for the local traffic. That's why NCDOT's priorities are a little whack. But I digress. At least they responded and gave explanation.
Agree they should have funded the whole project before starting it, especially since they included the rerouting in the 2023-24 state map. However, the change of the overhead signs on all the interstates was part of the last Greensboro Loop contract which left the remainder to be done as a division project, subject to finding the available funds. Guess now they don't want to start that one until they can fund the whole thing...Couldn't they at least put up a few trailblazers at important intersections to confirm what is shown on the NCDOT and Rand McNally maps? There are apparently still many US 70 shields still posted along the former route that could be recycled.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Strider on March 02, 2024, 01:09:45 AM
One would think that they would wait until they had funding for the entire job instead of just half-arsing it for several years but I doubt anyone follows US 70 just to get through Greensboro and most people have a GPS anyway.

Unless one want to clinch US 70 or for the local traffic. That's why NCDOT's priorities are a little whack. But I digress. At least they responded and gave explanation.
Agree they should have funded the whole project before starting it, especially since they included the rerouting in the 2023-24 state map. However, the change of the overhead signs on all the interstates was part of the last Greensboro Loop contract which left the remainder to be done as a division project, subject to finding the available funds. Guess now they don't want to start that one until they can fund the whole thing...Couldn't they at least put up a few trailblazers at important intersections to confirm what is shown on the NCDOT and Rand McNally maps? There are apparently still many US 70 shields still posted along the former route that could be recycled.


You are right. The shields could easily be recycled and put on Wendover and NC 68. I asked the local NCDOT how they will let people know of the route changes while waiting for funding. Their response is below:

Sent By: Contact Us AdministratorDate/Time: 2/29/2024 8:38:33 AM
Comment:We will put out a press release, notify Google and Bing maps about the changes.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 02, 2024, 03:24:40 AM
Part of this also..as I made my trip last weekend, all of US 311 was still signed south/east of 85, both reassurance and BGS.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wriddle082 on March 02, 2024, 04:45:25 PM
Part of this also..as I made my trip last weekend, all of US 311 was still signed south/east of 85, both reassurance and BGS.

But for at least the past year it’s been missing from all of the BGS’s for I-85 Exits 113B-C.

Google Maps still shows US 311 running from I-74 Exit 84 to Business US 220 in Randleman.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 02, 2024, 04:55:04 PM
That irks me. That US 311 signage should have been removed by now. The usends website (https://www.usends.com/) has suggested that the remaining segment of US 311 (Winston-Salem, NC to Danville, VA) should become an extension of US 360: https://www.usends.com/blog/us-311-should-have-been-decommissioned-in-1934-why-is-it-still-around.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: CanesFan27 on March 02, 2024, 07:47:20 PM
Part of this also..as I made my trip last weekend, all of US 311 was still signed south/east of 85, both reassurance and BGS.

Could part of the issue also be that the 70 routing change and 311 removal is occurring through multiple DOT maintenance divisions?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Katavia on March 13, 2024, 08:42:03 PM
Did the inner portion of I-85 BUS in Greensboro (north of the I-73/I-85 interchange) get chopped off recently?

I noticed a lot of missing shields (particularly on I-40 WB at the 40/85 split - one of the approach signs had no shields at all and read as "Left Exit 219 - SOUTH [missing US 29 shield, and blank spaces to left and right] - Charlotte" ) when I was in the area recently. TM and Google Maps say it remains active.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: Mapmikey on March 13, 2024, 08:49:17 PM
Did the inner portion of I-85 BUS in Greensboro (north of the I-73/I-85 interchange) get chopped off recently?

I noticed a lot of missing shields (particularly on I-40 WB at the 40/85 split - one of the approach signs had no shields at all and read as "Left Exit 219 - SOUTH [missing US 29 shield, and blank spaces to left and right] - Charlotte" ) when I was in the area recently. TM and Google Maps say it remains active.

I-85 Bus in Greensboro was deleted in 2018, see pg 5 here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31.pdf

NCDOT often takes a while to change signage.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: 74/171FAN on March 13, 2024, 08:57:02 PM
Did the inner portion of I-85 BUS in Greensboro (north of the I-73/I-85 interchange) get chopped off recently?

I noticed a lot of missing shields (particularly on I-40 WB at the 40/85 split - one of the approach signs had no shields at all and read as "Left Exit 219 - SOUTH [missing US 29 shield, and blank spaces to left and right] - Charlotte" ) when I was in the area recently. TM and Google Maps say it remains active.

I-85 Bus in Greensboro was deleted in 2018, see pg 5 here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31.pdf

NCDOT often takes a while to change signage.

The entire I-85 BL that serves Lexington has been removed as well. I believe that is still mostly signed at the moment.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 13, 2024, 09:54:16 PM
Did the inner portion of I-85 BUS in Greensboro (north of the I-73/I-85 interchange) get chopped off recently?

I noticed a lot of missing shields (particularly on I-40 WB at the 40/85 split - one of the approach signs had no shields at all and read as "Left Exit 219 - SOUTH [missing US 29 shield, and blank spaces to left and right] - Charlotte" ) when I was in the area recently. TM and Google Maps say it remains active.
Google Maps views of 40 WB and EB approaching the split show the 29 shield over “Charlotte”. These views are dated last August.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 16, 2024, 04:32:14 PM
Did the inner portion of I-85 BUS in Greensboro (north of the I-73/I-85 interchange) get chopped off recently?

I noticed a lot of missing shields (particularly on I-40 WB at the 40/85 split - one of the approach signs had no shields at all and read as "Left Exit 219 - SOUTH [missing US 29 shield, and blank spaces to left and right] - Charlotte" ) when I was in the area recently. TM and Google Maps say it remains active.

I-85 Bus in Greensboro was deleted in 2018, see pg 5 here - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2018_10_31.pdf

NCDOT often takes a while to change signage.

The entire I-85 BL that serves Lexington has been removed as well. I believe that is still mostly signed at the moment.

Went southbound from NC 68 to 285 a few days ago.  Do not recall seeing any BL shields.  DEFINITELY weren't any coming off 68.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: roadman65 on March 16, 2024, 05:16:19 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LTi92rJMy5wEkaQa6
None here either.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/gGCXbJNCcBmAViDe9
Question. Isn’t US 29 and US 70 also supposed to be signed here?
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: froggie on March 16, 2024, 05:54:58 PM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/gGCXbJNCcBmAViDe9
Question. Isn’t US 29 and US 70 also supposed to be signed here?

How gigantus of an overhead sign do you really want?

While technically correct, sometimes one has to limit it to just the most important info in order to preserve space.  There’s also a secondary guide sign before the exit telling drivers to use the exit for 29/70.
Title: Re: North Carolina
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on March 17, 2024, 10:01:51 PM
Was going to Lake Lure today for SCA fighter practice. Took a ride around the US 221 Rutherfordton  bypass to see the progress.  Was coming down US64 from Morganton.  First item I noted since my last trip 12/31/23....the easternmost locally additional access road north of 64 is now well underway.  The bridge for 64vover 221 has been complete for quite some time, but the approaches are nowhere near ready.  After driving over the future ROW on current 64, I again noted new work in the SW quadrant of the interchange to provide local access to a large church and some homes once 64 is relocated to the bridge.

Went north on existing 221, noted that the tie in road to the new highway appears to have resumed the grading work.  I then turned right on old 221which follows the new highway on the east side of the ROW..  About 3/4 of a mile in I noted a enlarged u-turn pocket on the NB side of the highway, indicating that anyone coming north on current 221 will be forced to turn right only on the new road, and the upturn to head towards Marion.  There was fresh grading for the location of the northern tie in.  The mainline and ramps are virtually complete for the Mountain Street exit.  Drovecstraight ahead to Charlotte Street.  The northern abutments are completed.  Only 2 lanes of traffic are squeezed on the northbound carrigeway.  On the south side of Charlotte Street, grading for the interchange is well underway, looks to be utilizing earty removed from the center of the project.

I may be around the Shelby Bypass later this coming week.  And should be back around the US 221 work again April13.