News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Monroe US 74 Bypass

Started by index, October 31, 2017, 10:37:36 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

froggie

Quote from: sprjus4At least hopefully not like the M.L.K. Freeway here in Hampton Roads, where 3 miles of limited-access road, built to interstate standards, and straight is 45 MPH.

The shoulders are not Interstate-standard, especially on the older section and underneath London Blvd.


sprjus4

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2018, 05:55:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4At least hopefully not like the M.L.K. Freeway here in Hampton Roads, where 3 miles of limited-access road, built to interstate standards, and straight is 45 MPH.

The shoulders are not Interstate-standard, especially on the older section and underneath London Blvd.

The part under London Blvd doesn't have shoulders because there is an ramp merge, and also not enough room. That is allowed to meet interstate standards, just look at any on/off ramp in North Carolina. The rest of the highway from the Midtown Tunnel to I-264 has fully paved shoulders. The highway should be posted at 55 MPH, not 45 MPH. I rarely see people on it actually doing below 50.

froggie

I don't disagree that it should be posted 55 MPH.  But there are inside shoulder standards as well as outside shoulders.  The inside shoulders especially are not I-spec.

And since you mention North Carolina...there's a reason why the completed portions of "I-295" around Fayetteville have not been fully accepted into the Interstate system. (hint:  it's the bridge shoulders)

sprjus4

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2018, 06:05:18 PM
I don't disagree that it should be posted 55 MPH.  But there are inside shoulder standards as well as outside shoulders. The inside shoulders especially are not I-spec.

And since you mention North Carolina...there's a reason why the completed portions of "I-295" around Fayetteville have not been fully accepted into the Interstate system. (hint:  it's the bridge shoulders)

Ah, you are right. An interstate with a barrier for a median should have a 10 foot shoulder. If it was grassy median, than 4 feet is acceptable with the rest graded. However, many interstates do not meet this requirement and are signed as interstates, including major 2-D routes. As for I-295, that is a full bridge, not an entrance merge. Plus, the proposed I-87 project in eastern North Carolina would allow the two major river crossings to retain the existing non-shoulder bridges and be exempt from requirements. I don't think the bridge is the reason, I think they're waiting for the entire beltway to be finished.

froggie

^ Keep in mind most of those are older Interstates that were built when standards were lower than today.

The 1967 Highway Act mandated that shoulder widths were to be carried across bridges.  Thus, normal shoulder widths for Interstates also apply to bridges.  The only way those I-87/US 17 bridges would be "exempt from requirements" is if FHWA approved such an exemption.  I have not heard of them approving such.  Given the I-295 Fayetteville precedent, they may well not approve it.

wdcrft63

Quote from: LM117 on November 28, 2018, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 09:28:54 AMthough it seems NCDOT is trending toward making new routes Bypass routes and leaving the originals where they are (e.g. Goldsboro) so that with an eventual Interstate designation, AASHTO can't deny them from moving the US route back to the inferior alignment.

...except for the Clayton Bypass. Rather than signing it as US-70 Bypass, NCDOT just signed it as US-70 and changed it's old route through Clayton to US-70 Business. I never understood why they did that.
At the time that decision was made, it wasn't known that the route was going to be an interstate. So I guess a different policy was in place.

sprjus4

Quote from: froggie on November 28, 2018, 06:15:58 PM
^ Keep in mind most of those are older Interstates that were built when standards were lower than today.

The 1967 Highway Act mandated that shoulder widths were to be carried across bridges.  Thus, normal shoulder widths for Interstates also apply to bridges.  The only way those I-87/US 17 bridges would be "exempt from requirements" is if FHWA approved such an exemption.  I have not heard of them approving such.  Given the I-295 Fayetteville precedent, they may well not approve it.
In the U.S. 17 Feasibility Study, multiple sections mention retaining the bridges
- "Additionally, some existing bridges with narrower shoulders may be retained and used with a design exception."
- The existing bridges over the Roanoke River and along existing US 17 through the Roanoke River NWR would be retained and used. Design exceptions would be required due to insufficient shoulder widths to meet interstate standards."
- "*Design exception may be required" (referring to bridges that do not meet standards but would be retained)

Yes, FHWA would have to approve such exemption, but as far as planned now, that is what is expected to happen.

Roadsguy

Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

sprjus4

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?
I don't believe so, but signing it as Exit 253 would make sense.

Mapmikey

Quote from: wdcrft63 on November 28, 2018, 06:29:26 PM
Quote from: LM117 on November 28, 2018, 01:04:48 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 09:28:54 AMthough it seems NCDOT is trending toward making new routes Bypass routes and leaving the originals where they are (e.g. Goldsboro) so that with an eventual Interstate designation, AASHTO can't deny them from moving the US route back to the inferior alignment.

...except for the Clayton Bypass. Rather than signing it as US-70 Bypass, NCDOT just signed it as US-70 and changed it's old route through Clayton to US-70 Business. I never understood why they did that.
At the time that decision was made, it wasn't known that the route was going to be an interstate. So I guess a different policy was in place.

The difference may be that in the Goldsboro example there are 3 US 70 routings a la Elizabeth City and US 17.  Trying to think of recent bypass openings like Clayton which have only 2 routings...there is US 401 Business Rolesville, US 70 Business in Beaufort and US 421 Business Sanford (though NC 87 is signed as BYPASS and mainline).  The upcoming US 64 in Asheboro will be a Business route.

rickmastfan67

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?

Quote from: ccurley100 on August 24, 2018, 10:30:34 AM
I took a few pics around Stallings a couple of weeks ago. https://photos.app.goo.gl/x7C1wPYXMbGohxHq9

There's pictures there from both directions on US-74 @ I-485 showing BGS's w/ exit numbers of 253(A&B) posted.  Gore signs hadn't been updated yet.

Roadsguy

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2018, 11:39:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?

Quote from: ccurley100 on August 24, 2018, 10:30:34 AM
I took a few pics around Stallings a couple of weeks ago. https://photos.app.goo.gl/x7C1wPYXMbGohxHq9

There's pictures there from both directions on US-74 @ I-485 showing BGS's w/ exit numbers of 253(A&B) posted.  Gore signs hadn't been updated yet.

In cases like the WB exit where a ramp diverges and then splits into two ramps (not a C/D road), does NCDOT usually not assign A-B exit numbers and instead just sign the first split with the straight number? This seems to be the case from your pictures.

Also interesting that they changed the control cities for I-485 to more local destinations. Are they doing that elsewhere too?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

rickmastfan67

Quote from: Roadsguy on November 29, 2018, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2018, 11:39:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?

Quote from: ccurley100 on August 24, 2018, 10:30:34 AM
I took a few pics around Stallings a couple of weeks ago. https://photos.app.goo.gl/x7C1wPYXMbGohxHq9

There's pictures there from both directions on US-74 @ I-485 showing BGS's w/ exit numbers of 253(A&B) posted.  Gore signs hadn't been updated yet.

In cases like the WB exit where a ramp diverges and then splits into two ramps (not a C/D road), does NCDOT usually not assign A-B exit numbers and instead just sign the first split with the straight number? This seems to be the case from your pictures.

Also interesting that they changed the control cities for I-485 to more local destinations. Are they doing that elsewhere too?

Beats me, I didn't take those pictures.

Roadsguy

Quote from: sprjus4 on November 28, 2018, 07:14:11 AM
I find it odd how (at least the northern one) the split between the toll road and the old road, the toll road is signed as an exit (Exit 255) whereas the old route has continuity. But then you hop on the bypass and the exit scheme continues (Exit 257, etc.)

I understand it is a "Bypass" route and a toll road, but usually it would still have continuity. At that split, U.S. 74 toward Monroe and Indian Trail should be Exit 255. Most bypasses in North Carolina are as such.

Just curious, how is it signed at the southern end?

The eastern terminus of the expressway has regular US 74 as the numbered exit, not the expressway, as seen in this video. I'd think it's an error if not for the fact that it has the yellow LEFT indicator.

Even more mysteriously, the eastbound sign approaching the expressway split seen at 1:48 in the video has no exit tab at all. Was the exit tab added later or is that set of signs in a different place from the pictures linked upthread?
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

sprjus4

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 03, 2018, 07:38:30 PM
The eastern terminus of the expressway has regular US 74 as the numbered exit, not the expressway, as seen in this video. I'd think it's an error if not for the fact that it has the yellow LEFT indicator.
That's really odd. Why would NCDOT sign it one way on the western end, and differently on the eastern end? Then again, at least it's not as bad as some bypasses which on one end have continuity, but on the other you have to use a ramp to access it.

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 03, 2018, 07:38:30 PM
Even more mysteriously, the eastbound sign approaching the expressway split seen at 1:48 in the video has no exit tab at all. Was the exit tab added later or is that set of signs in a different place from the pictures linked upthread?
That sign is from the frontage road before the split, the left lane slips onto the bypass, and the main lanes continue on U.S. 64. There would be no exit number on the frontage road. The one with the Exit 255 tab is on the mainline freeway.

Roadsguy

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 03, 2018, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on December 03, 2018, 07:38:30 PM
Even more mysteriously, the eastbound sign approaching the expressway split seen at 1:48 in the video has no exit tab at all. Was the exit tab added later or is that set of signs in a different place from the pictures linked upthread?
That sign is from the frontage road before the split, the left lane slips onto the bypass, and the main lanes continue on U.S. 64. There would be no exit number on the frontage road. The one with the Exit 255 tab is on the mainline freeway.

Ah, the frontage road. That explains it.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

ccurley100

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 29, 2018, 03:48:04 AM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 29, 2018, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2018, 11:39:41 PM
Quote from: Roadsguy on November 28, 2018, 06:51:32 PM
Also, was the junction with I-485 given an exit number?

Quote from: ccurley100 on August 24, 2018, 10:30:34 AM
I took a few pics around Stallings a couple of weeks ago. https://photos.app.goo.gl/x7C1wPYXMbGohxHq9

There's pictures there from both directions on US-74 @ I-485 showing BGS's w/ exit numbers of 253(A&B) posted.  Gore signs hadn't been updated yet.

In cases like the WB exit where a ramp diverges and then splits into two ramps (not a C/D road), does NCDOT usually not assign A-B exit numbers and instead just sign the first split with the straight number? This seems to be the case from your pictures.

Also interesting that they changed the control cities for I-485 to more local destinations. Are they doing that elsewhere too?

Beats me, I didn't take those pictures.
The control cities have been changed either Pineville, Matthews, or Huntersville on all of 485 but on the ramp from 74 Westbound to 485 in Matthews they are still Columbia and Greensboro. The cities are Statesville and Spartanburg at the Oakdale Rd exit (18) which is kind of strange since that exit didn't open until last year.


iPhone

ccurley100

Monroe Bypass Pics 12-2-18. I drove it Sunday morning but it was raining so some of the pics aren't that great. They were taken eastbound for the entire road and westbound from 601 to 485. https://photos.app.goo.gl/GobbqZpAwLNWfypv6


iPhone

Roadsguy

Quote from: ccurley100 on December 05, 2018, 04:57:26 PM
Monroe Bypass Pics 12-2-18. I drove it Sunday morning but it was raining so some of the pics aren't that great. They were taken eastbound for the entire road and westbound from 601 to 485. https://photos.app.goo.gl/GobbqZpAwLNWfypv6

Still better than nothing for those of us hundreds of miles away. :P

It also settles the speed limit on the upgraded part of regular 74 between 485 and the new bypass: 55 mph. Where does the limit drop on the east end?

They must have some plans for US 601 considering that they widened it from two lanes to six in just the vicinity of the interchange with the bypass.
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

jcarte29

Quote from: Roadsguy on December 06, 2018, 11:19:02 AM
Where does the limit drop on the east end?




Pretty much right away down to 55 to 45 because it bumps against the town limit of Marshville.
Interstates I've driven on (Complete and/or partial, no particular order)
------------------
40, 85, 95, 77, 277(NC), 485(NC), 440(NC), 540(NC), 795(NC), 140(NC), 73, 74, 840(NC), 26, 20, 75, 285(GA), 81, 64, 71, 275(OH), 465(IN), 65, 264(VA), 240(NC), 295(VA), 526(SC), 985(GA), 395(FL), 195(FL)

LM117

Google Maps is now showing the bypass.
“I don’t know whether to wind my ass or scratch my watch!” - Jim Cornette

sprjus4

Quote from: LM117 on December 07, 2018, 08:48:41 AM
Google Maps is now showing the bypass.
There's still a lot of issues they need to fix. For routing, half the ramps aren't even correctly connected, nor is the bypass on either end connected to US 74 properly. I did a route from one end to another and it says it would take 40 minutes to traverse it. It doesn't even recommend as a route even when routing from two areas w/ routes connected. If I force it on there, it adds 10 minutes.

Hopefully they fix these issues, because as a 65 MPH freeway it should be the recommended route as opposed to back roads, toll or not.

RoadPelican

I'm glad that a bypass of Monroe was built, but doesn't anybody think it's pretty cruel that when you travel from west to east via the bypass that you immediately get dumped onto a 45 then 35 MPH corridor in downtown Marshville with 5 traffic lights when the bypass ends.

There is not really a transition zone.

I think the bypass should have been extended to at least the east of Marshville and then go back to mainline US 74 on it's rural 55 MPH highway before going into the 7 traffic light trap known as "Wadesboro." The 55 MPH zone of the current US 74 would be a transition zone, until NCDOT can put 70 MPH bypasses around Marshville & Wadesboro.

Roadsguy

Quote from: RoadPelican on December 07, 2018, 07:05:11 PM
I'm glad that a bypass of Monroe was built, but doesn't anybody think it's pretty cruel that when you travel from west to east via the bypass that you immediately get dumped onto a 45 then 35 MPH corridor in downtown Marshville with 5 traffic lights when the bypass ends.

There is not really a transition zone.

I think the bypass should have been extended to at least the east of Marshville and then go back to mainline US 74 on it's rural 55 MPH highway before going into the 7 traffic light trap known as "Wadesboro." The 55 MPH zone of the current US 74 would be a transition zone, until NCDOT can put 70 MPH bypasses around Marshville & Wadesboro.

More incentive to upgrade 74 to Rockingham? :bigass:
Mileage-based exit numbering implies the existence of mileage-cringe exit numbering.

sprjus4

It's now fixed on Google Maps, it now properly routes on it, and all the ramps are connected properly.

When routing from end to end, the existing U.S. 74 doesn't even show up as an option. Google says the bypass takes 18 minutes, and when I force route onto the old route, it says 28 minutes (note, this is at 1 AM with traffic points just around the lights, green every else). I can only imagine during rush hour it actually is up to 20 or more minutes as NCDOT claims.



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.