Interstate 73/74

[Rothman]

I don't get the need for full access at all 3 interchanges.

I was wondering this as well. Who is going from I-40 westbound to I-74 westbound or eastbound, or I-74 (either direction) to I-40 EB? There are no plans to continue the beltway south/west, right? Seems like a massive interchange for very little traffic.

I agree... I can understand the ramps for redundancy, but 2 lane flyovers seem a bit excessive. Well... at least they will never be congested!

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

When I-481 is converted to I-81, its connection from I-81 SB to BL-81 NB will no longer be direct as I-481 SB to I-81 NB is now, despite BL-81 still being limited access north of the interchange.

[sprjus4]

I-40/I-840/I-85 in eastern Greensboro, I-40 east from the Death Valley section does not have any ramp to 85 south

Uhh...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1z2Um1WecUauYyGB8?g_st=ic
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BdVMxyTUqYCvCQpv9?g_st=ic

[jdunlop]

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

Is this something introduced in the last 15-20 years, in which the interstate-to-interstate connection must include direct ramps between all directions?

I ask this because I can think of many interstate-to-interstate junctions that don't have this, usually a bypass route and its parent (i.e. for a California example, I-405 and I-5 at both ends in Sylmar and Irvine respectively, in which Route 118 and Route 133 serve the missing movements nearby).

There are some examples of Interstate-to-interstate in North Carolina that do not have this:

I-40/former I-85 (US 29) in Greensboro, in which the missing 85 north to 40 west move was covered by US 220. Junction was built when both routes were Interstates, before the Greensboro urban loop/I-840 happened

I-285/I-85 in Lexington, grandfathered in as I-285 was not originally interstate.  Standard Y junction

I-40/I-840/I-85 in eastern Greensboro, I-40 east from the Death Valley section does not have any ramp to 85 south

I-795 and I-587, though the Interstate designations came after both freeways were originally constructed.

I should have said new interchanges, not retrofits.  And I don't know when FHWA 'changed the directive.

There's a good number of interchanges built 30+ years ago where a minor movement was directed to another route/interchange.  You mentioned the I-40/old I-85 one in Greensboro.  We had to provide a justification when naming I-285 to not have to build the missing movements as direct ramps (using NC 47 to provide those minor movements.)  There's other examples of this (non-interstate to interstate interchanges as well.)

 For some, no such connections are needed even when reconstructing the interchange, but for others (primarily interstate to interstate) those connections may need to be built.  The I-40/I-26 interchange was missing two movements; once the project is finally let, those two movements will be built.

The interstate to interstate movements must be direct, ( no surface streets/signals/stop signs.). I-295 north of Fayetteville had to be named NC 295 until a direct ramp from I-95N to I-295W (exit 58) could be built (it's under construction now.). FHWA was OK with the indirect movement when it was designed (early-mid '90s) but changed their mind around the time that segment was built.  (possible new regs or just a change in decision makers)

[TheStranger]

I-40/I-840/I-85 in eastern Greensboro, I-40 east from the Death Valley section does not have any ramp to 85 south

Uhh...
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1z2Um1WecUauYyGB8?g_st=ic
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BdVMxyTUqYCvCQpv9?g_st=ic

Oops, I didn't realize the right-hand ramp was shifted so far east of the bridges! Will correct my post.

[bob7374]

Traffic shift coming to the NC 74 (Future I-74)/Winston-Salem Northern Beltway and US 52 South interchange over the weekend:
https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/2024/2024-04-25-weekend-closures-traffic-shift-forsyth.aspx

Will this shift come with permanent signing?

[vdeane]

I don't get the need for full access at all 3 interchanges.

I was wondering this as well. Who is going from I-40 westbound to I-74 westbound or eastbound, or I-74 (either direction) to I-40 EB? There are no plans to continue the beltway south/west, right? Seems like a massive interchange for very little traffic.

I agree... I can understand the ramps for redundancy, but 2 lane flyovers seem a bit excessive. Well... at least they will never be congested!

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

When I-481 is converted to I-81, its connection from I-81 SB to BL-81 NB will no longer be direct as I-481 SB to I-81 NB is now, despite BL-81 still being limited access north of the interchange.

Of course, that will no longer be an interstate/interstate junction at that point.

I honestly would not be surprised if this regulation is the reason why keeping the freeway north of I-690 as a 3di was nixed (along with the plan to build the missing movements at the I-690 interchange).  Still don't know why it couldn't be a state route the whole way, however.  Region 3 just dodged the question when I asked.

[Rothman]

I don't get the need for full access at all 3 interchanges.

I was wondering this as well. Who is going from I-40 westbound to I-74 westbound or eastbound, or I-74 (either direction) to I-40 EB? There are no plans to continue the beltway south/west, right? Seems like a massive interchange for very little traffic.

I agree... I can understand the ramps for redundancy, but 2 lane flyovers seem a bit excessive. Well... at least they will never be congested!

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

When I-481 is converted to I-81, its connection from I-81 SB to BL-81 NB will no longer be direct as I-481 SB to I-81 NB is now, despite BL-81 still being limited access north of the interchange.

Of course, that will no longer be an interstate/interstate junction at that point.

Butbutbut...it's still an Interstate shield...it's just green...

I honestly would not be surprised if this regulation is the reason why keeping the freeway north of I-690 as a 3di was nixed (along with the plan to build the missing movements at the I-690 interchange).  Still don't know why it couldn't be a state route the whole way, however.  Region 3 just dodged the question when I asked.

Honestly, I think the option for 3dis was overlooked and then when considered, FHWA was already on board with BL-81 and NYSDOT didn't want to go back and fiddle with AASHTO and redrafting whatever documents already drafted.  So, a goof...that caused the federal share to go from 90 to 80...

[NE2]

FHWA requires full movement at all Interstate interchanges (with very few exceptions) hence the redundant ramps.

Is this something introduced in the last 15-20 years, in which the interstate-to-interstate connection must include direct ramps between all directions?

I ask this because I can think of many interstate-to-interstate junctions that don't have this, usually a bypass route and its parent (i.e. for a California example, I-405 and I-5 at both ends in Sylmar and Irvine respectively, in which Route 118 and Route 133 serve the missing movements nearby).

Texas is apparently allowed to cheat; there is no direct ramp from I-14 east (designated 2017) to I-35 south.