News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

North Carolina

Started by FLRoads, January 20, 2009, 11:55:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bob7374

Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 06, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on December 06, 2015, 03:18:00 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 05, 2015, 10:14:41 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 05, 2015, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on December 04, 2015, 08:33:09 PM
Quote from: Third Strike on December 04, 2015, 08:13:45 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


WashuOtaku

Quote from: bob7374 on December 07, 2015, 12:52:32 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

I don't see a dramatic rerouting of I-40 happening, people in Wilmington would simply flip their shit.   :-D

wdcrft63

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.)

CanesFan27

Quote from: 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.


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. 

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
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.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
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.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
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.

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 12, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
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.

wdcrft63

NCDOT could finesse the US 70/I-95 interchange problem by making it part of the much larger problem of upgrading I-95.

Henry

I could see I-42 on the US 70 upgrade, especially if the I-44 to Norfolk thing goes through.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.

WashuOtaku

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 17, 2015, 05:27:57 PM
Who believes North Carolina needs more Interstates? Me, I'm undecided.

Yes, the more the better.

wdcrft63

Quote from: 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.

As far as I can tell from its minutes, the US 70 Corridor Commission has never discussed a number for the proposed interstate.

Henry

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 17, 2015, 06:38:13 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Mileage Mike

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.

noelbotevera

Quote from: Cemajr 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.
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.

wdcrft63

Quote from: Cemajr 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.

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.

CanesFan27

Quote from: wdcrft63 on December 18, 2015, 06:32:45 PM
Quote from: Cemajr 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.

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. 

CanesFan27

Quote from: 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.

I thought that as well but you have to shoehorn through some development or make a high speed trumpet to trumpet connection.

Mapmikey

Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: 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.

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

CanesFan27

Quote from: Mapmikey on December 18, 2015, 09:25:30 PM
Quote from: CanesFan27 on December 18, 2015, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: 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.

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

The Ghostbuster

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.

Third Strike

Quote from: 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.

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.

Henry

Quote from: Third Strike on December 22, 2015, 09:28:08 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

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.

wdcrft63

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.

jwolfer

Quote from: Cemajr 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.
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

amroad17

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 don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)

WashuOtaku

Quote from: 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.

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:



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.