News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 295- Fayetteville, NC

Started by Strider, January 03, 2013, 01:28:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Ghostbuster

Probably. And they should have. Screw the federal law that says they can't on toll roads; it is way past time for that law to be changed.


Dirt Roads

Everyone is getting confused here.  The primary difference between Fayetteville I-295 (signed as NC-295) and Northern Raleigh I-540 (which was never signed as NC-540) is the difference between even 3DIs and odd 3dis.  For the odd 3DI, there was never a need to be concerned that Northern Raleigh I-540 might never reconnect to I-40 (but AASHTO was concerned enough to discourage the use of an even 3DI).  For I-295, there was also a real concern that the freeway would never connect back to I-95.

One of the unspeakable issues here is that highways can be constructed at a much lower cost by: (A) avoiding Interstate standards; and/or (B) avoiding the use of Federal funds.  The corollary here is when Federal funds dry up, NCDOT is now big enough that they can complete a highway project by simplifying the design yet still meeting a high level of design capacity (think building a Superstreet instead of a freeway).

tolbs17

...and renumbering the highway to I-640...

sprjus4


Mapmikey

#204
NCDOT applied for I-195 as the designation for the entire Fayetteville loop in May 2003, which was rejected by AASHO for reasons unrelated to the number, namely that the road was not approved by FWHA as an interstate at all.  See page 1 here.

In November 2003, NCDOT was on board with I-295 as the full loop was apparently decided upon - https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/safety/Route%20Changes/2003_11_20.pdf.  Also remember that they posted it as FUTURE I-295 first, then was told they needed to post as NC 295 pending improvements and/or approvals.


As for NC 540, NCDOT posted I-540 signs (see here for Adam Prince picture of this) on the segment from I-40 nw of Raleigh south and southeast to NC 55 as it was approved as Future I-540 in 1996 (see page 7 here) then was lobbied by the Turnpike Authority to change it to NC 540

As I understand it, a toll road can be posted as an interstate if no federal funds were used on any part of its design/construction (or the state reimburses such funds already used).

fillup420

Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2021, 09:22:41 AM
^ Strawman argument.  Federal law does allow new toll roads (which 540 basically is) to be signed as Interstates.

Well it actually has to do with the funding. Since NC 540 was not publicly funded, no interstate status

LM117

Quote from: Mapmikey on July 17, 2021, 02:12:01 PM
NCDOT applied for I-195 as the designation for the entire Fayetteville loop in May 2003, which was rejected by AASHO for reasons unrelated to the number, namely that the road was not approved by FWHA as an interstate at all.  See page 1 here.

I remember back in 2007 when FHWA & AASHTO played a game of "hot potato" with I-795. AASHTO initially rejected it because it wasn't approved by FHWA, and then FHWA refused to add I-795 to the system until AASHTO approved it. Go figure.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

bob7374

NCDOT has announced road closures due to the next stage of construction of the future I-295 segment in Robeson County between I-95 and Camden Road:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2021/2021-07-29-fayetteville-outer-loop-construction.aspx

Meanwhile, I have posted on my I-295/Fayetteville Outer Loop page examples of some of the newly released plans for re-signing the northern section between I-95 and the All American Freeway from NC 295 to I-295: https://malmeroads.net/ncfutints/fut295.html#signplans

froggie

Quote from: tolbs17 on July 17, 2021, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: froggie on July 17, 2021, 09:22:41 AM
^ Strawman argument.  Federal law does allow new toll roads (which 540 basically is) to be signed as Interstates.
So, NCDOT can sign NC-540 I-540 if they wanted to?

As long as the roadway meets Interstate standards and FHWA deems it a logical addition to the Interstate system (which it most likely would upon full completion), yes they could.  Despite what fillup420 posted, there are scenarios under which toll roads can be added to the Interstate system despite the "lack of public funding".  The I-185 SC extension south(east) of I-85 to I-385 is one example.  And in an Oklahoma thread, there are indications that FHWA has either signed off on or is about to regarding extending I-240 OK to include two OKC toll roads (one of which was just opened recently).

architect77

Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 17, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
Everyone is getting confused here.  The primary difference between Fayetteville I-295 (signed as NC-295) and Northern Raleigh I-540 (which was never signed as NC-540) is the difference between even 3DIs and odd 3dis.  For the odd 3DI, there was never a need to be concerned that Northern Raleigh I-540 might never reconnect to I-40 (but AASHTO was concerned enough to discourage the use of an even 3DI).  For I-295, there was also a real concern that the freeway would never connect back to I-95.

One of the unspeakable issues here is that highways can be constructed at a much lower cost by: (A) avoiding Interstate standards; and/or (B) avoiding the use of Federal funds.  The corollary here is when Federal funds dry up, NCDOT is now big enough that they can complete a highway project by simplifying the design yet still meeting a high level of design capacity (think building a Superstreet instead of a freeway).

I still believe the completed loop will get a single designated name, for clear understanding by the public that it is but one entity, a full loop.

NC has previously gotten permission to toll I-95 so it's a stupid rule that will be overidden in my opinion. I also believe it will get an even number designation likely I-640.

I don't agree or like your stance of not meeting interstate standards. I thought the only purpose of sending tax revenue to Washington only to get it dispersed back was to ensure uniformity across all states that keeps drivers safer from not being surprised with new conditions that they aren't familiar with and must adjust to.

As long as NC gets back a tad more than they sent to D.C. it's a good thing for other states' dollars being spent locally.

Strider

Quote from: architect77 on August 18, 2021, 04:11:38 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 17, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
Everyone is getting confused here.  The primary difference between Fayetteville I-295 (signed as NC-295) and Northern Raleigh I-540 (which was never signed as NC-540) is the difference between even 3DIs and odd 3dis.  For the odd 3DI, there was never a need to be concerned that Northern Raleigh I-540 might never reconnect to I-40 (but AASHTO was concerned enough to discourage the use of an even 3DI).  For I-295, there was also a real concern that the freeway would never connect back to I-95.

One of the unspeakable issues here is that highways can be constructed at a much lower cost by: (A) avoiding Interstate standards; and/or (B) avoiding the use of Federal funds.  The corollary here is when Federal funds dry up, NCDOT is now big enough that they can complete a highway project by simplifying the design yet still meeting a high level of design capacity (think building a Superstreet instead of a freeway).

I still believe the completed loop will get a single designated name, for clear understanding by the public that it is but one entity, a full loop.

NC has previously gotten permission to toll I-95 so it's a stupid rule that will be overidden in my opinion. I also believe it will get an even number designation likely I-640.

I don't agree or like your stance of not meeting interstate standards. I thought the only purpose of sending tax revenue to Washington only to get it dispersed back was to ensure uniformity across all states that keeps drivers safer from not being surprised with new conditions that they aren't familiar with and must adjust to.

As long as NC gets back a tad more than they sent to D.C. it's a good thing for other states' dollars being spent locally.


I-640 is NOT going to happen. The road will remain I-540 and Toll NC 540 even after the loop is fully finished.

sprjus4

^ Yup. No one else besides roadgeeks care about 540 vs. 640. Changing it is just going to cause more confusion in regards to a route that's been established for decades.

The most I think may happen one day is changing NC-540 to I-540. But the number itself will never change.

Dirt Roads

Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 17, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
One of the unspeakable issues here is that highways can be constructed at a much lower cost by: (A) avoiding Interstate standards; and/or (B) avoiding the use of Federal funds.  The corollary here is when Federal funds dry up, NCDOT is now big enough that they can complete a highway project by simplifying the design yet still meeting a high level of design capacity (think building a Superstreet instead of a freeway).

Quote from: architect77 on August 18, 2021, 04:11:38 PM
I don't agree or like your stance of not meeting interstate standards. I thought the only purpose of sending tax revenue to Washington only to get it dispersed back was to ensure uniformity across all states that keeps drivers safer from not being surprised with new conditions that they aren't familiar with and must adjust to.

As long as NC gets back a tad more than they sent to D.C. it's a good thing for other states' dollars being spent locally.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I was a fan of reducing costs in this manner.  I recall that this comment was part of a multi-thread discussion about whether certain roads get constructed to Interstate standards or not.

With respect to this thread, I'm pretty sure that NCDOT wants the entirety of the Fayetteville Outer Loop to be constructed to Interstate standards and get designated as I-295.  But many of the freeways in North Carolina have been constructed to lesser standards to reduce costs and right-of-way impact.  Most,  including the recent addition of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass, have never been envisioned as part of Interstate system, but one notable example is the US-1 corridor through the Sandhills, which has been requested as an addition to the Interstate system on at least one occasion.  Similarly, NCDOT is in no hurry to upgrade the substandard sections of US-52 as part of the I-74 corridor since the posted 65 mph makes the route acceptable.

I don't know if any projects in North Carolina have ever been constructed without Federal funding, but the FHWA remains concerned about states and localities significantly reducing costs by constructing certain projects without tapping the Federal Highway Trust Fund.  I don't if it is actually true (and I ought to because I was a cost estimator on a bunch of major projects), but the rule of thumb was that the cost of highway projects doubled under Federal regulations, whereas transit projects were more than tripled.  Not that long ago, the concern was so great that back in 2013-2014 the GAO reviewed whether highway projects were avoiding a formal environmental review process.  They found that states had adopted environmental standards similar to FHWA regulations, and made no recommendations.  I have worked on several projects involving historic-eligible structures and the topic of avoiding Federal funding always comes up.

sprjus4

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 18, 2021, 05:32:28 PM
Most,  including the recent addition of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass, have never been envisioned as part of Interstate system
One thing notable North Carolina does a lot is the lack of fully paved shoulders on freeway projects, a move I disagree with IMO. It removes a safety feature, especially on high speed routes. Yes, there's technically a graded shoulder you can stop on, but I wouldn't trust it as much as a full breakdown lane.

Was the Pollocksville Bypass built to lesser standards, however? That particular project was a fully fledged out interstate-grade freeway with full paved shoulders and a 70 mph design / posted speed. Perhaps underneath features not visible to the motorists eye?

Unless you're referring to the mere widening of US-17 between the Pollocksville and Maysville bypasses that was built as a four lane divided highway with partial access control as opposed to a full fledged freeway flanked with frontage roads and a couple of overpasses / ramps.

Quote
but one notable example is the US-1 corridor through the Sandhills, which has been requested as an addition to the Interstate system on at least one occasion.
A route that is mostly at least freeway grade, though has a couple intersections.

One thing that bothers me about North Carolina (not NCDOT's fault) is discrimination of speed limits based on route types. NCDOT from a sole design standpoint may chose to build a route in this manner (at-grade vs. grade separated) due to lower volumes and less need, however, doing such requires a speed limit to be maxed out at 60 mph as opposed to 70 mph, which then in turn often gets little compliance (everybody still drives 70-75 mph because the roadway can easily handle it, despite an artificially low limit).

They should, IMO, be able to post a 70 mph speed limit on a modern, 4 lane divided highway, regardless of access control, if the roadway is designed to handle it. Specific examples that come to mind are the limited access, but with at grade, portions of US-17, US-74, US-1, and other highways. Even some non-limited-access should at least be allowable at 65 mph.

Dirt Roads

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:41:33 PM
Was the Pollocksville Bypass built to lesser standards, however? That particular project was a fully fledged out interstate-grade freeway with full paved shoulders and a 70 mph design / posted speed. Perhaps underneath features not visible to the motorists eye?

I'm not an expert on Interstate standards.  But the US-70 freeway between LaGrange and New Bern has much wider lanes and shoulders and still wasn't compliant until the recent minor improvement project.  The US-17 Pollocksville Bypass reminds me of some of the narrow freeway corridors built in the 1960s, with tight radius off-ramps and the like.  It's a great improvement, so there no room to complain.  At least the bridges were built with wider shoulders to permit the increase to 70MPH.

Strider

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 18, 2021, 07:12:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:41:33 PM
Was the Pollocksville Bypass built to lesser standards, however? That particular project was a fully fledged out interstate-grade freeway with full paved shoulders and a 70 mph design / posted speed. Perhaps underneath features not visible to the motorists eye?

I'm not an expert on Interstate standards.  But the US-70 freeway between LaGrange and New Bern has much wider lanes and shoulders and still wasn't compliant until the recent minor improvement project.  The US-17 Pollocksville Bypass reminds me of some of the narrow freeway corridors built in the 1960s, with tight radius off-ramps and the like.  It's a great improvement, so there no room to complain.  At least the bridges were built with wider shoulders to permit the increase to 70MPH.

The difference between those two?

US 70 is on the way to become Interstate 42, hence why it has much wider lanes and shoulders.

US 17 isn't going to become an interstate. (at least for time being, perhaps?). NCDOT was simply saving money by upgrading US 17 to freeway standards (I think their budget shortcomings may have something to do with it). I will bet that when time comes, they probably will go back and do the upgrade again if they plan on extending the US 17 freeway south past Pollocksville.


tolbs17

Quote from: Strider on August 18, 2021, 08:10:33 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 18, 2021, 07:12:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:41:33 PM
Was the Pollocksville Bypass built to lesser standards, however? That particular project was a fully fledged out interstate-grade freeway with full paved shoulders and a 70 mph design / posted speed. Perhaps underneath features not visible to the motorists eye?

I'm not an expert on Interstate standards.  But the US-70 freeway between LaGrange and New Bern has much wider lanes and shoulders and still wasn't compliant until the recent minor improvement project.  The US-17 Pollocksville Bypass reminds me of some of the narrow freeway corridors built in the 1960s, with tight radius off-ramps and the like.  It's a great improvement, so there no room to complain.  At least the bridges were built with wider shoulders to permit the increase to 70MPH.

The difference between those two?

I think he's saying that the median width is 46 feet as apposed to 60, 70, and 96 feet (the freeway from Dover to New Bern is 96 feet btw), on other locations. Take a look at it this way - the freeway from Greenville to Farmville was built with a 46 foot median as well as the Northwest (and Southwest) bypass. Do they look like the highways you see in the 1960s? In my opinion, it looks okay, although not very wide, but it's still a improvement compared to a two-lane highway.


Now talking about I-295, When can the section from I-95 to Parkton Rd open? The bridges and asphalt are up and it looks like that segment can open anytime soon.

bob7374

Quote from: tolbs17 on October 07, 2021, 05:32:09 AM
Quote from: Strider on August 18, 2021, 08:10:33 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 18, 2021, 07:12:14 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 18, 2021, 05:41:33 PM
Was the Pollocksville Bypass built to lesser standards, however? That particular project was a fully fledged out interstate-grade freeway with full paved shoulders and a 70 mph design / posted speed. Perhaps underneath features not visible to the motorists eye?

I'm not an expert on Interstate standards.  But the US-70 freeway between LaGrange and New Bern has much wider lanes and shoulders and still wasn't compliant until the recent minor improvement project.  The US-17 Pollocksville Bypass reminds me of some of the narrow freeway corridors built in the 1960s, with tight radius off-ramps and the like.  It's a great improvement, so there no room to complain.  At least the bridges were built with wider shoulders to permit the increase to 70MPH.

The difference between those two?

I think he's saying that the median width is 46 feet as apposed to 60, 70, and 96 feet (the freeway from Dover to New Bern is 96 feet btw), on other locations. Take a look at it this way - the freeway from Greenville to Farmville was built with a 46 foot median as well as the Northwest (and Southwest) bypass. Do they look like the highways you see in the 1960s? In my opinion, it looks okay, although not very wide, but it's still a improvement compared to a two-lane highway.

Now talking about I-295, When can the section from I-95 to Parkton Rd open? The bridges and asphalt are up and it looks like that segment can open anytime soon.
Don't know if they plan to open it until the whole route to Camden Road is complete. The entire project was about 74% complete at the end of August and the current completion date has been pushed back to mid-July 2022.

architect77

Quote from: Dirt Roads on August 18, 2021, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 17, 2021, 12:31:04 PM
One of the unspeakable issues here is that highways can be constructed at a much lower cost by: (A) avoiding Interstate standards; and/or (B) avoiding the use of Federal funds.  The corollary here is when Federal funds dry up, NCDOT is now big enough that they can complete a highway project by simplifying the design yet still meeting a high level of design capacity (think building a Superstreet instead of a freeway).

Quote from: architect77 on August 18, 2021, 04:11:38 PM
I don't agree or like your stance of not meeting interstate standards. I thought the only purpose of sending tax revenue to Washington only to get it dispersed back was to ensure uniformity across all states that keeps drivers safer from not being surprised with new conditions that they aren't familiar with and must adjust to.

As long as NC gets back a tad more than they sent to D.C. it's a good thing for other states' dollars being spent locally.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I was a fan of reducing costs in this manner.  I recall that this comment was part of a multi-thread discussion about whether certain roads get constructed to Interstate standards or not.

With respect to this thread, I'm pretty sure that NCDOT wants the entirety of the Fayetteville Outer Loop to be constructed to Interstate standards and get designated as I-295.  But many of the freeways in North Carolina have been constructed to lesser standards to reduce costs and right-of-way impact.  Most,  including the recent addition of the US-17 Pollocksville Bypass, have never been envisioned as part of Interstate system, but one notable example is the US-1 corridor through the Sandhills, which has been requested as an addition to the Interstate system on at least one occasion.  Similarly, NCDOT is in no hurry to upgrade the substandard sections of US-52 as part of the I-74 corridor since the posted 65 mph makes the route acceptable.

I don't know if any projects in North Carolina have ever been constructed without Federal funding, but the FHWA remains concerned about states and localities significantly reducing costs by constructing certain projects without tapping the Federal Highway Trust Fund.  I don't if it is actually true (and I ought to because I was a cost estimator on a bunch of major projects), but the rule of thumb was that the cost of highway projects doubled under Federal regulations, whereas transit projects were more than tripled.  Not that long ago, the concern was so great that back in 2013-2014 the GAO reviewed whether highway projects were avoiding a formal environmental review process.  They found that states had adopted environmental standards similar to FHWA regulations, and made no recommendations.  I have worked on several projects involving historic-eligible structures and the topic of avoiding Federal funding always comes up.

What's interesting is whether the federal gov't. ever notices the glaring difference between a state like NC which is a prolific road builder with more and more new interstates being added, versus a state like Georgia that hasn't built any new interstates at all over the last 50 years.

NC has to be getting much more federal funds with all the new highways, though I know that part of the formula allocates each state money based on population or miles of interstates, etc.

I would think that someone would look at it as unfair when a few states are applying for and getting the majority of available funding.

OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

sprjus4

^ Whatever it is, interstate or state route combo, it will be 540. It's not going to change to 640.

Dirt Roads

Quote from: architect77 on October 08, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

Folks around here originally called it the "Outer Beltline".  Now that it actually ended up with its own style of "belt buckle", I suspect that it's going to get that same moniker.  But the toll road portion will still get called the "Triangle Expressway".

wdcrft63

Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 09, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 08, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

Folks around here originally called it the "Outer Beltline".  Now that it actually ended up with its own style of "belt buckle", I suspect that it's going to get that same moniker.  But the toll road portion will still get called the "Triangle Expressway".
It will all be 540 and the exit numbers will be consistent around the circle. Most drivers couldn't care less what shape the shields have as long as they all say 540.

architect77

Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 09, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 08, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

Folks around here originally called it the "Outer Beltline".  Now that it actually ended up with its own style of "belt buckle", I suspect that it's going to get that same moniker.  But the toll road portion will still get called the "Triangle Expressway".
It will all be 540 and the exit numbers will be consistent around the circle. Most drivers couldn't care less what shape the shields have as long as they all say 540.

I totally disagree. The red, white and blue American interstate shield is unbelievably important to people in catching their attention and knowing what all is associated with that symbol.

But I will admit many people are reliant on GPS telling them how to navigate, and I'll bet many would be challenged to follow a federal or state route using only the signs.

I'm not sure out of towners would associate NC540 and I-540 as being the same highway.

As to someone mentioning a belt buckle whatever that means, it's interesting that the beltline isn't a true loop because its using I-40 to close the gap.

Charlotte folks used to complain that Raleigh was getting its 2nd loop before their first one was even finished. I responded by reminding them that I-485 is longer and has more lane miles than what's completed so far of both Raleigh's loops.

jdunlop

Quote from: architect77 on October 15, 2021, 05:59:52 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 09, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 08, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

Folks around here originally called it the "Outer Beltline".  Now that it actually ended up with its own style of "belt buckle", I suspect that it's going to get that same moniker.  But the toll road portion will still get called the "Triangle Expressway".
It will all be 540 and the exit numbers will be consistent around the circle. Most drivers couldn't care less what shape the shields have as long as they all say 540.

I totally disagree. The red, white and blue American interstate shield is unbelievably important to people in catching their attention and knowing what all is associated with that symbol.

But I will admit many people are reliant on GPS telling them how to navigate, and I'll bet many would be challenged to follow a federal or state route using only the signs.

I'm not sure out of towners would associate NC540 and I-540 as being the same highway.

As to someone mentioning a belt buckle whatever that means, it's interesting that the beltline isn't a true loop because its using I-40 to close the gap.

Charlotte folks used to complain that Raleigh was getting its 2nd loop before their first one was even finished. I responded by reminding them that I-485 is longer and has more lane miles than what's completed so far of both Raleigh's loops.

Ultimately, there's no overlap with I-40.  After this current section(s) are built to bring it from NC 55 to I-40/I-42 (US 70), there's more sections that'll take it from that interchange to I_87 (US 64) and I-540 near Knightdale.

And Charlotte got its first loop first.  I-277.


tolbs17

Quote from: jdunlop on October 15, 2021, 06:10:02 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 15, 2021, 05:59:52 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on October 09, 2021, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: Dirt Roads on October 09, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: architect77 on October 08, 2021, 07:29:59 PM
OK I-640 may not be the name, but I guarantee the completed outerloop in Wake will get one designation to convey it's what it's intended to be: one  loop like Charlotte's I-485.

Folks around here originally called it the "Outer Beltline".  Now that it actually ended up with its own style of "belt buckle", I suspect that it's going to get that same moniker.  But the toll road portion will still get called the "Triangle Expressway".
It will all be 540 and the exit numbers will be consistent around the circle. Most drivers couldn't care less what shape the shields have as long as they all say 540.

I totally disagree. The red, white and blue American interstate shield is unbelievably important to people in catching their attention and knowing what all is associated with that symbol.

But I will admit many people are reliant on GPS telling them how to navigate, and I'll bet many would be challenged to follow a federal or state route using only the signs.

I'm not sure out of towners would associate NC540 and I-540 as being the same highway.

As to someone mentioning a belt buckle whatever that means, it's interesting that the beltline isn't a true loop because its using I-40 to close the gap.

Charlotte folks used to complain that Raleigh was getting its 2nd loop before their first one was even finished. I responded by reminding them that I-485 is longer and has more lane miles than what's completed so far of both Raleigh's loops.
And Charlotte got its first loop first.  I-277.
Which is smaller and it's just a loop that goes around downtown. Tbh, I don't really like it, it makes downtown feel so cluttered..



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.