AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Poll

Will AASHTO Approve or Reject the I-36 or 89 designations?

Approve Both
- 12 (18.5%)
Approve 36 and Reject 89
- 30 (46.2%)
Reject 36 and Approve 89
- 3 (4.6%)
Reject Both
- 20 (30.8%)

Total Members Voted: 64

Voting closed: May 26, 2016, 02:17:33 PM


Author Topic: NC is requesting I-36 for US 70 East Corridor and I-89 for RDU to Norfolk corr  (Read 73536 times)

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7056
  • Age: 52
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:45:26 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway

Now that I remember it, I-36 was to start at I-26 using the US 74 corridor, then run up US 1 before running northeast to Norfolk using the now-proposed I-89 corridor. And IIRC, it was to continue up the coast to Scranton, PA, but nothing beyond Norfolk was ever detailed.

Back to the real world: I agree that I-97 would make a better number than I-89, if they insist on making Norfolk-Raleigh a north/south route, and then the current I-97 could become an extension of either I-70 or I-83 (my preferred choice), or even I-995. As for I-36 as it is now, I don't mind it being used, even though it's on the wrong side of I-40. An extension down US 1 to Rockingham would better justify its existence.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3046
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 11, 2022, 08:38:18 PM

I'm wondering if VDOT will eventually consider extending I-89 over I-464 and having it end at I-264 rather than just ending it at I-64 in Chesapeake. I'm not quite sure how much work would need to be done (if any) to the US-17/I-64/I-464/VA-168 interchange to make it happen, though. I'm still a little surprised NCDOT went with I-36 for US-70 since it's out of grid, but at least it's number matches the direction it follows, unlike I-89.  :banghead:
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 01:00:56 PM by LM117 »
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:19:58 PM
    • New York State Roads

The southeast is REALLY BAD when it comes to assigning cardinal directions.  Just look at I-85 and I-26 (heck, even the portions of I-74 that will actually get built; they really should just number the road as I-73 with an x73 for any remaining pieces of those roads).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3428
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:45:26 PM

If you ask me, Interstate 26 and Interstate 85 would have more legitimacy if the two existing routes swapped places.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:24:44 PM

There's just one important question here: Has the grid numbering system been broken so many times that it's no longer worth defending? If that's the case, then AASHTO will approve North Carolina's proposals. But AASHTO might decide that the grid still has some life in it; if so, then (at least) I-36 must be renumbered above 40. We'll find out before the end of the month.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12264
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:59:00 PM
    • Froggie's Place

Quote
There's just one important question here: Has the grid numbering system been broken so many times that it's no longer worth defending? If that's the case, then AASHTO will approve North Carolina's proposals.

This would "validate" I-36, but not I-89.  The main issue with I-89 isn't that it "breaks the grid."  It's that they proposed an odd number for a predominantly east-west route.
Logged

wdcrft63

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 807
  • Location: Durham, NC
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 06:24:44 PM

Quote
There's just one important question here: Has the grid numbering system been broken so many times that it's no longer worth defending? If that's the case, then AASHTO will approve North Carolina's proposals.

This would "validate" I-36, but not I-89.  The main issue with I-89 isn't that it "breaks the grid."  It's that they proposed an odd number for a predominantly east-west route.

Agreed. The I-89 proposal doesn't actually break the grid numerically, since the route begins in Raleigh between I-85 and I-95. However, I'd say it does break the grid rules by being more east-west than north-south.
Logged

paulthemapguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6159
  • nobody asked me

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Illinois
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:37:19 PM

I-36 (or US70) should be an eastern extension of I-40.  That current route down to Wilmington should have an odd number.  Heck, put I-99 there!  Better yet, make the RDU-Norfolk corridor the east extension of I-40 and put I-99 on the southern leg down to Wilmington.  (The current I-99 can go die.  :) :) :) :))
« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 11:16:24 PM by paulthemapguy »
Logged
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My Shield Gallery, Sorted https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
Source Photos https://flic.kr/s/aHskFU42pF
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 345/424. Only 79 route markers remain!

WashuOtaku

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 622
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 12:12:54 AM

I-36 (or US70) should be an eastern extension of I-40.  That current route down to Wilmington should have an odd number.  Heck, put I-99 there!  Better yet, make the RDU-Norfolk corridor the east extension of I-40 and put I-99 on the southern leg down to Wilmington.  (The current I-99 can go die.  :) :) :) :))

None of that is going to happen.
Logged

Eth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2837
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Georgia
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 04:35:01 PM

The southeast is REALLY BAD when it comes to assigning cardinal directions.  Just look at I-85 and I-26 (heck, even the portions of I-74 that will actually get built; they really should just number the road as I-73 with an x73 for any remaining pieces of those roads).

The grid in this part of the country makes much more sense if you think of "north-south" as being parallel to the coast (see I-95, I-85, I-81) and "east-west" as perpendicular to the coast (see I-24, I-26, I-40 past Raleigh).

That still wouldn't legitimize "I-89", though, since the coast turns back to being roughly north-south by that point. I'd go with either 54 or 56 for that one.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12264
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:59:00 PM
    • Froggie's Place

Below is an email (posted verbatim) I received from NCDOT that details out their decision to request the numbers in question:

Quote
This is in reference to your correspondence concerning recent Interstate request submittals to AASHTO from NCDOT.  A great deal of thought went into the selection of the proposed Interstate numbers.  We reviewed various 2 digit numbers; however, all had either conflicts with NC routes, VA routes or were utilized in other states.
 
The east west numbers that fell in the range between 40 and 64 had what we perceived as greater conflicts. The following routes were considered, but rejected due to the below reasons:
·         42 – has a State route that is a widely used in central and eastern NC
·         44 – received comments from people concerning 44 and confusing it with I- 440
·         46 – exists in both states, located in central NC
·         48 – has a State route that is widely used in central and eastern NC
·         50 – has a State route that is widely used in central and eastern NC
·         52 – NC and VA have a US route 52, but we prefer not to create other conflicts like 74
·         54 – has a State route used in central and eastern NC
·         58 – has a State route that is widely used in central and eastern NC
·         60 – avoiding utilizing 60 as well as 50based on review by FHWA
·         62 – exists in both states, located in central NC, less likely to be confused; however; VA would like to avoid the potential confusion with 64.
 
We also reviewed the various north south numbers between 89 and 95.
·         87 – has a State route that is widely used in central and eastern NC
·         89 – NC and VA have a state route, but they are located in the western parts of the state
·         91 – NC has a short section in the eastern portion of the state and VA has a route in the west
·         93 – NC and VA have a state route, but they are located in the western parts of the state
 
Interstate 89 was chosen due to the smaller amount of conflicts with other Interstates (85,95), US routes and NC routes.  The even number routes did not appear to be fixable without creating conflicts with the current state routes.
 
We have received email correspondence from Virginia Department of Transportation indicating their support of the use of 89.
 
The Department will likely replace the 495 section and not continue it as aconcurrent route.  We see opportunities to reduce the length of I-440 and possibly diminish some confusion on the 440 loop.  We have not currently made this decision, but are considering the various alternatives.
 
Once the Department receives approval, we will follow the process required to place the appropriate signs.  We would like to place the signs as soon as we are able.
 
For the 70 corridor, the number 36 appears to be the only number in the range that did not have a conflict.  There are several examples across the country where the numbers are slightly out of order.
 
We are confident your community can appreciate the difficulty in attempting to find numbers that do not have state or multi-state conflicts.  As we continue to add additional interstate routes, the supply of numbers will continue to diminish and simply end.  Even the three digit numbers are becoming problematic in some instances.  There are technically 50 numbers for north south and 50 numbers for east west highways, what are the realm of solutions for when you need 51 or more interstate highways? Will we duplicate more numbers? What about considering the geographic separation.? If there happens to be an Interstate 5 on the east coast, would anyone realistically become confused with the Interstate 5 on the west coast?  As indicated previously, the Department took several scenarios into consideration and chose the number with the least amount of conflict.   
 
Thank you for interest in the North Carolina highway system.

As noted in the email, I-89 (if approved) would likely replace I-495, and might also replace that southeastern bit of I-440.
Logged

bob7374

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1663
  • Age: 57
  • Location: East Weymouth, Massachusetts
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:35:13 PM
    • Bob Malme's Road Pages

Below is an email (posted verbatim) I received from NCDOT that details out their decision to request the numbers in question....

As noted in the email, I-89 (if approved) would likely replace I-495, and might also replace that southeastern bit of I-440.
Thanks for the effort in getting and posting this information. I assume the confusion at the eastern end of I-440 NCDOT refers to is that it is signed west but goes east at that point. Putting a north-south route (or even an east-west route heading east) would solve this problem. Despite their explanation, I would prefer an even numbered route for the corridor.

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5751
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: May 23, 2022, 10:07:55 PM

So, every number that would make sense duplicates the number of an existing prominent state highway, and they prefer to solve this problem by using a number that doesn't make sense instead of renumbering one of their state highways to avoid the conflict.

Yeah, that's asinine logic and if FHWA has any sense they'll throw both of these proposed numbers out. If NC wants these interstates they should number them the right way, not the lazy way.

I also note they never explained why not 56. That number would work nicely for the Raleigh-Norfolk corridor.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12264
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:59:00 PM
    • Froggie's Place

She may have caught that she omitted 56, but NC 56 exists north of Raleigh and comes within 15 miles of the proposed Interstate corridor.
Logged

Mapmikey

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3884
  • Co-curator with Froggie of www.vahighways.com

  • Age: 52
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 08:40:51 PM
    • Co-curator Virginia Highways Project

Sounds like maybe they wanted to go with 44 as was originally requested to FHWA in 2012 but are afraid a few people would confuse 44 and 440. 

Wonder if those same people confuse 40 and 440...?

Avoid Altoona PA!  US 22 and US 220 will blow your mind...
Logged

WashuOtaku

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 622
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 12:12:54 AM

As noted in the email, I-89 (if approved) would likely replace I-495, and might also replace that southeastern bit of I-440.

Makes sense to have a two-digit interstate end at a two-digit interstate, would actually be an improvement.  They could then reroute US 64 back through Knightdale and truncate US 264 at the freeway split near Zebulon, make it clean.
Logged

WillWeaverRVA

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1841
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 01:16:39 PM
    • WillWeaverRVA Photography

I noticed that NC 54 isn't "widely" used...why not just renumber that? ;)
Logged
Will Weaver
WillWeaverRVA Photography | Twitter

"But how will the oxen know where to drown if we renumber the Oregon Trail?" - NE2

LM117

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3046
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Danville, VA 👎
  • Last Login: May 11, 2022, 08:38:18 PM

As noted in the email, I-89 (if approved) would likely replace I-495, and might also replace that southeastern bit of I-440.

Makes sense to have a two-digit interstate end at a two-digit interstate, would actually be an improvement.  They could then reroute US 64 back through Knightdale and truncate US 264 at the freeway split near Zebulon, make it clean.

I would hope so. Otherwise it would be more useless concurrencies. At first, I was going to say that I doubted AASHTO would allow US-64 back onto it's original route through Knightdale, but if US-117 is any indication, then it shouldn't be a problem getting it approved. I never understood why NCDOT wasted their time with I-495. They should've waited and gotten the interstate corridor approved through Congress before seeking an interstate number for US-64 if a Raleigh-Norfolk route was the long-term plan. If the FAST Act had gotten canned, then I-495 would've been a perfect Plan B, since it would give Raleigh an interstate connection to I-95, if nothing else. NCDOT jumped the gun and went about it backwards, IMO.  :hmm:
Logged
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:19:58 PM
    • New York State Roads

I think it's a bit ridiculous that NC is so worried about number duplication now that I-74 and US 74 intersect multiple times (no way that number got legislated without SOME kind of input from NC).  And what's wrong with renumbering the state highway?  Last I checked, interstates are the top dog; state routes exist as connectors and to serve other areas, local traffic, etc.  And I recall that state routes used to change numbers all the time, up until the 80s, in fact.  What is different now?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

WashuOtaku

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 622
  • Location: North Carolina
  • Last Login: Today at 12:12:54 AM

I think it's a bit ridiculous that NC is so worried about number duplication now that I-74 and US 74 intersect multiple times (no way that number got legislated without SOME kind of input from NC).  And what's wrong with renumbering the state highway?  Last I checked, interstates are the top dog; state routes exist as connectors and to serve other areas, local traffic, etc.  And I recall that state routes used to change numbers all the time, up until the 80s, in fact.  What is different now?

It is precisely because of I-74 and US 74 that they don't really want another number duplication again.  I-74 was a number mandated by the U.S. Congress, while this new Interstate corridor was not number assigned, making it easier for NCDOT to do it right.  Of course, they can easily renumber state highways, especially some of those that are short and not utilized.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3428
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:45:26 PM

Maybe if more of the future Interstate 89 is built in a north-south fashion, the number will have more legitimacy. Since what exists of future 89 right now goes in an east-west direction, it would have more legitimacy as an even-numbered Interstate.
Logged

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2717
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:10:13 PM

I noticed that NC 54 isn't "widely" used...why not just renumber that? ;)

I'd prefer renumbering NC 56 as it is not really in the RDU metropolitan area.  Also NC 54 is somewhat important to Chapel Hill and Cary at least.
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:19:58 PM
    • New York State Roads

I think it's a bit ridiculous that NC is so worried about number duplication now that I-74 and US 74 intersect multiple times (no way that number got legislated without SOME kind of input from NC).  And what's wrong with renumbering the state highway?  Last I checked, interstates are the top dog; state routes exist as connectors and to serve other areas, local traffic, etc.  And I recall that state routes used to change numbers all the time, up until the 80s, in fact.  What is different now?

It is precisely because of I-74 and US 74 that they don't really want another number duplication again.  I-74 was a number mandated by the U.S. Congress, while this new Interstate corridor was not number assigned, making it easier for NCDOT to do it right.  Of course, they can easily renumber state highways, especially some of those that are short and not utilized.
And I doubt Congress would have numbered it I-74 if North Carolina didn't want it numbered I-74.  West Virginia is fine with keeping it US 52 and Ohio just isn't interested at all.  Perhaps the can petition Congress to change the number (but really - would anything happen if NC and the FHWA decided to ignore Congress on this?  I doubt anyone in Congress other than Schuster really cares that much about the particular number).
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

74/171FAN

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2717
  • Age: 30
  • Location: Harrisburg, PA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 09:10:13 PM

I think it's a bit ridiculous that NC is so worried about number duplication now that I-74 and US 74 intersect multiple times (no way that number got legislated without SOME kind of input from NC).  And what's wrong with renumbering the state highway?  Last I checked, interstates are the top dog; state routes exist as connectors and to serve other areas, local traffic, etc.  And I recall that state routes used to change numbers all the time, up until the 80s, in fact.  What is different now?

It is precisely because of I-74 and US 74 that they don't really want another number duplication again.  I-74 was a number mandated by the U.S. Congress, while this new Interstate corridor was not number assigned, making it easier for NCDOT to do it right.  Of course, they can easily renumber state highways, especially some of those that are short and not utilized.
And I doubt Congress would have numbered it I-74 if North Carolina didn't want it numbered I-74.  West Virginia is fine with keeping it US 52 and Ohio just isn't interested at all.  Perhaps the can petition Congress to change the number (but really - would anything happen if NC and the FHWA decided to ignore Congress on this?  I doubt anyone in Congress other than Schuster really cares that much about the particular number).

Wait, was Bud Schuster behind the I-73/I-74 numbers too?  I only remember him for I-99 obviously.  (which I am not even sure PA cares about anymore)
Logged
I am now a PennDOT employee.  My opinions/views do not necessarily reflect the opinions/views of PennDOT.

vdeane

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13101
  • Age: 31
  • Location: NY's Capital District
  • Last Login: May 24, 2022, 10:19:58 PM
    • New York State Roads

I only remember Bud for I-99 as well.  But that's the point... I imagine whoever came up with I-73/I-74 doesn't care as much about whether the number is "nifty".  And yeah, I-99 is essentially dead.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

 


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.